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

PRESENT: Members Canup, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer.

ABSENT/EXCUSED: Member Churella (absence excused), Member Richards (absence excused)

ALSO PRESENT: Planning/Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Staff Planner Beth Brock, Planning Director David Evancoe, City Attorney Gerald Fisher, Planner Amy Golke, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke, Planner Barbara McBeth, City Engineer Nancy McClain, Landscape Architect Lauren McGuire, Wetland Consultant David Mifsud, City Attorney Tom Schultz, Engineering Consultant Victoria Weber

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

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Nagy, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Agenda as submitted.

Yes: Canup, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer

No: None

None

Planning Director David Evancoe announced a letter from the developer of the Ridgeview project has been distributed to the Commission. The developer requests to be tabled to the next Regular Planning Commission on January 9, 2002.

Vice Chairperson Canup asked the Commission

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Markham, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To remove Matter for Consideration item #4 – Ridgeview Center SP01-51 due to the request made by the petitioner and with the request that the Staff make the petitioner aware that because the meeting may be extensive due to other matters their case could be a later part in the meeting.

Yes: Canup, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer

No: None

Member Shroyer encouraged the Planning Department to continue to review the preliminary information submitted. He noted an abnormally high number of variances and waiver requests. He hoped that the extended period of time would give the petitioner and the applicant the adequate amount of time to review outstanding issues prior returning before the Commission.

Mr. Evancoe agreed.

Consideration of the request of JS Evangelista Development, LLC for approval of a one year Final Site Plan extension. The subject project is located in Section 2 at 14 Mile and Decker Roads. The applicant proposes a 100 unit congregate senior housing project on 4.67 acres. The property is zoned R-A (PUD).

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

Member Kocan made minor revisions to the minutes of October 3, 2001 and November 7, 2001 Regular Planning Commission minutes.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Nagy, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve a one year Final Site Plan extension for Maples Manor SP98-57 and the minute of Regular Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 2001 and Regular Planning Commission meeting November 7, 2001 as amended.

Yes: Canup, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer

No: None

Public Hearing on the request of Detroit Water & Sewerage Department, for approval of the Preliminary Site Plan, Woodlands Permit, and Wetlands Permit. The subject property is located in Section 1 on the south side of Fourteen Mile Road and west of Haggerty Road. The applicant proposes a water supply reservoir and pump station on a 4.89-acre site. The property is zoned OST (office Service Technology).

Mr. Evancoe introduced Haggerty Pumping Station SP01-71. The planned facility would be an unmanned pumping station with a ten million (10,000,000) gallon water tank reservoir. It is felt that the facility would enhance water reliability for the City. The project would add a sixteen inch (16") water line to increase water pressure to the areas east of M-5. A view looking southwest from the back of the adjacent property (North Medical). The view looking east along Fourteen Mile Road depicts the higher roadway at the entry point to site. The surrounding properties are zoned OST. The Master Plan for Land Use identifies the proposed property and surrounding properties are planned for office use. Existing adjacent land uses include North Medical directly to the east, residence at the northwest portion of the site, vacant property immediately to the south, a shopping center within Commerce Township directly to the north, and M-5 to the west. He noted the concern with the distance between buildings. The applicant indicates a distance of forty-five (45) feet. However, sixty-seven (67) feet is required. The matter could be resolved with a revision of the building distance on the Final Site Plan or the applicant could seek a ZBA Variance. There are no actual parking spaces shown on the plan. Although the site plans submitted, (particularly the landscape sheet), refer to two (2) parallel parking spaces, which calculated a requirement for the provision of two (2) trees. Therefore, these need to be shown on the site plan. In addition, there is an issue of how many spaces are required. The proposed use is not identified in the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission could attempt to find a similar use identified in the Zoning Ordinance and apply the parking requirements to the proposed site. The Planning Commission could consider that the proposed site is similar to an industrial land use. Such a determination would require six (6) parking spaces, which would need to either be provided or a ZBA Variance sought. If the Planning Commission decided to not make the interpretation of the proposed use being similar to an industrial land use, then the Staff and Planning Consultant would recommend the provision of the two (2) spaces. The Staff and Consultants prepared two alternative drawings. One indicates the possible location of two (2) parking spaces, one for handicap accessibility and the other a standard parking space. Alternatively, additional pavement could be added to the west for the provision of the two (2) parking spaces. He noted the preference to not add additional pavement unless necessary. Regardless of the location of the parking spaces, a Planning Commission Wavier is necessary from Section 2506.13 for the required raised end islands at the end of the parking base, which would allow for painted islands where the traffic volume is expected to be low. Alternatively, the applicant could identify the two (2) locations of their parallel parking spaces for review at Final. He noted that handicap accessibility is often difficult with parallel parking because of the curb. Mr. Evancoe indicated that a loading space needed to be shown on the site plan. He noted the possibilities. He noted the overhead door location as the logical location for the loading space to occur. The loading space is required to be screened with a wall or berm and landscaping, which is not currently shown on the site plan. Alternatively, a Planning Commission Waiver could be granted for the screening. He noted the twenty-five (25) foot wide utility easement located in that vicinity. Therefore, a wall could not be used to meet the screening requirement and a berm and landscaping would be the only alternative.

In regard to wetlands, Mr. Evancoe indicated that JCK recommended approval of the required Minor Use Wetland Permit. The grading on the east side of the tank presents minor impacts to the twenty-five (25) foot wetland buffer in three different places. The wetland is shown along the edge along the east with three small areas to be impacted by the grading.

In regard to woodlands, Mr. Evancoe indicated the Woodland Consultant Linda Lemke has recommended the required Woodland Permit. Fifty-four (54) trees are to be removed. The applicant has indicated seven (7) regulated trees to be removed. However, Ms. Lemke has indicated that at this stage no woodland replacement trees are required. The trees less than 8" d.b.h. are not required to be replaced.

In regard to the Landscape Review, Mr. Evancoe indicated a 30" berm and landscaping that are required in the right-of-way along Fourteen Mile Road, which are not shown on the Site Plan. Therefore, the applicant needs to revise the Final Site Plan to show this requirement or a ZBA variance from the 30" berm requirement would be necessary. However, the landscaping can not be waived. The four (4) foot area of green space adjacent to the building has not been provided. The area directly around the pump station is paved. The landscape space will need to be created on the Final Site Plan or a Planning Commission Waiver could be granted due to the additional green space throughout the site. He noted that sixty percent (60%) of the green space at the front of the building and at the front of the site would need to be planted with shrubs or other plant material(s) other than ground cover.

Mr. Evancoe stated that the Fire, Traffic and Engineering reviews indicated that a truck turn around would be required. He noted the location of the possible location(s) (both temporary and permanent) as determined by Staff. He added that this could be handled at Final.

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

Edward Walsh, Project Manager of Medco Services represented Detroit Water/Sewage Department addressed the handicap parking issue. He indicated that the State Law specifically exempts water treatment facilities from barrier free and handicap access.

Khalil Atasi, partner of the Joint Venture Clear Water Team stated that he is working with the design of the proposed project. He commented that the facility would not be manned on a daily basis and would be operated from a remote facility located Downtown Detroit.

Mr. Walsh interjected making the correction that the facility would be visited three times a day as it is standard procedure.

Mr. Atasi indicated that unless there was a serious emergency, truck traffic is not anticipated. He stated that the proposed project would improve the quality of life in Novi and improve the low pressure situation at the south end of Novi.

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

Member Nagy noted the correction made by Mr. Walsh, in which he indicated that facility would be visited three times a day.

Mr. Walsh answered, correct.

Member Nagy asked what type of vehicle would be on the premises.

Mr. Walsh indicated that the vehicle would be a Detroit Water/Sewage owned vehicle, which are typically blue vans with a logo.

Member Nagy clarified that it would not be a large van.

Mr. Walsh stated that the van would be a standard size.

Member Nagy commented on the landscaping. After reviewing the Site Plan and Ms. Lemke’s letter, she felt that more extensive landscaping was needed. She requested that the proposed Austrian Pine be replaced with another species because the Austrian Pine is not a native tree. She requested that the berm and landscaping be added along Fourteen Mile Road. She requested that more landscaping be provided along the green space located in the front of the building. She stated the screening issue was important and felt that the applicant should meet this requirement. She referenced the Traffic Review letter dated December 13, 2001. She asked Mr. Arroyo to explain the reasoning for the requested stop sign.

Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant indicated the reasoning was due to the approach to Fourteen Mile Road. He noted that it was a standard to clarify to those approaching the public street to stop in yield of right-of-way.

Member Nagy noted his comment regarding circulation, in which he recommended the extension of the north lot of 30 feet to allow the largest fire truck to turn around on-site. She noted that there was also a recommendation by the Staff. She questioned which option he felt would make it easiest for a truck to maneuver. She questioned if the gravel would be easier to access and turn around.

Mr. Arroyo indicated that the gravel portion suggestion was primarily for the larger trucks that might be accessing the site during construction. However, he noted the primary concern regarding circulation was the City’s Fire Truck. The City has a new fire truck, larger than the previous trucks, which takes a greater turning radius. He noted the review of the Staff concerns regarding the sensitivity to the landscaping. The parking relates to the matter because the parking will have an impact on the circulation of the trucks and the room for maneuverability. He stated that the issue would involve minor "tweaking" of the parking lot, which he felt could be resolved at Final.

Member Nagy asked Mr. Evancoe to respond to Mr. Walsh’s comment regarding the State Law which would make his site exempt of the handicap-parking requirement. She asked if the presented information would change the location of the parking spaces suggested by the Staff.

Mr. Evancoe indicated that when a land use is not specifically designated in the Zoning Ordinance, Planning Commission has the ability to create a parking requirement believed to be necessary to serve the site. Therefore, he noted the recommendation to provide two (2) spaces. He assumed the gentleman’s information is accurate, however, he continued to recommend two (2) parking spaces.

Member Nagy did not recall a facility, such as the proposed, which provided handicap parking. She questioned the necessity for two (2) parking spaces if the handicap space was excluded.

Mr. Evancoe indicated that the site would be visited three times a day. The second space would provide parking for any additional vehicle that could arrive on the site on occasion. He added that the additional space would prevent the obstruction of the driveway.

Member Kocan restated the options to determine if six (6) parking spaces are required verses a recommendation of two (2). She noted her understanding to service the proposed facility while in use, as well as to ensure any new usage would be able to utilize the same parking. She added that she did not anticipate any other usage. She questioned if two (2) was randomly determined. She questioned if there could be three parking spaces if there was no longer a need for the handicap parking space. She questioned if there was enough room for three and if it was a better alternative. She asked if there was enough room for six (6) parking spaces.

Mr. Evancoe indicated that there was not a need for six (6) parking spaces. He explained that he was making the information available in case the commission felt there was a necessity for more spaces. He indicated that two (2) was determined because it was anticipated that one (1) would be utilized by an employee and the second by a visitor. He stated that three spaces would allow for two (2) visitors. He stated that one (1) parking spaces was not adequate.

Member Kocan clarified that there was enough room for three (3) parking spaces if the handicap was removed.

Mr. Evancoe answered, yes.

Member Kocan addressed the location of the parking spaces and the load doors. She asked Mr. Evancoe if the development surrounding the residence are required to screen according to OST abutting residential property.

Mr. Evancoe deferred the question to Lauren McGuire Landscape Architect.

Lauren McGuire Landscape Architect noted her understanding that the property of the residence is zoned OST. Therefore, the screening is for the loading area, which is required. She noted the request for screening for the residence. However, it is not required.

Member Kocan clarified that the typically required 4’6" berm to separate a OST from a residential property is not required.

Ms. McGuire indicated that it would not be required because the property is not zoned residential.

Member Kocan questioned if the residence existed first.

Ms. McGuire stated that she was not certain.

Member Kocan noted the legal concern with regard to screening the residential property. She stated that the residence existed first. If the property sells it could remain residential. Therefore, she questioned if the development(s) around the residence should treat the residence as being zoned residential.

Ms. McGuire noted the request to screen the entire residence.

Member Kocan stated that the 4’6" berm is not being requested.

Ms. McGuire explained that the interpretation of the property being an OST zoning, therefore it is not being screened as residential zoning.

Member Kocan indicated that she did not agree. She questioned if there were any legal issues. She questioned if the Detroit Water/Sewer Department contacted the resident. Although the screening is not required, she noted that it is a concern with residential abutting any industry or OST development.

Mr. Evancoe requested that Ms. Lemke be permitted to address her concern.

Ms. Lemke indicated that Lemke & Associates did not do the review for the project. However, she agreed with Ms. McGuire’s interpretation of the Ordinance. The zoning district triggers the 4’6" berm and screening. Typically, she would request additional screening, primarily evergreen trees and shrubs, to screen the use (if it is an active residential use). She indicated that it is not required by Ordinance because it is determined by district. Therefore, a residential district is adjacent to OST would be required to provide the berm and screening. However, it is not required because the residence property is zoned OST.

Member Kocan thanked Ms. Lemke for her clarification. She noted the house residence’s elevation appeared to be at 970 and the proposed pump station at 970. Therefore, because the two are at the same elevation she would require some type of screening. She questioned the noise levels due to the air vents on the side of the building facing the residence. She requested screening with additional pines for the overhead door or loading dock facing the residence. She questioned if the other commissioners felt there was enough green space being maintained in the area to substantiate a Planning Commission Waiver. She clarified if the distance between the pump station and the tank was mandated by the size of the property or if it needed to be this close. The ordinance for the separation of buildings is because typically a certain amount of separation is wanted between two different businesses. She questioned if the situation substantiated a waiver or variance.

Mr. Evancoe indicated the site has restrictions in terms of its width with the regulated wetland to the east and the residence to the west. He presumed the spacing met the applicant’s standards of what would be considered "proper and safe spacing". He felt the proposed site was a candidate qualifying for a ZBA Variance due to its unique condition. He stated if the site were larger, more separation could possibly be provided.

Member Kocan clarified that Mr. Evancoe did not have a problem with the distance.

Mr. Evancoe indicated that he personally did not have a problem with the distance because the separation from the roadway was substantial and the provided greenery and landscaping between both buildings and the main road. He did not find that the spacing would create difficulty for any other reason.

Acting Chairperson Canup indicated that typically the buildings (water reservoir, water pumping station) are located in the structure of the building. Typically, there is a need to have the close to one another. He stated there is a particular need for the distance verses the intent of the Ordinance at the time.

Member Kocan stated that the west half of the front side of the building will have an air vent to pull air into the building to cool machinery. She noted that although they are not anticipated to create noise, it should be verified that the 70 decibels during the daytime is not exceeded.

Acting Chairperson Canup questioned the 70 decibel limit was for nighttime.

Member Kocan indicated that the nighttime limit is 75 decibels.

Member Markham questioned the reasoning for the closeness in the building’s proximity.

Lee Mault Project Manager with Clear Water Team indicated the required fifty (50) foot setbacks around the property dictated the placement of the two infrastructures. He noted the wetland buffer zone requirement, which bordered on the east and the 50’ setback on the south, west and north sides. He explained the awareness of the ten million round gallon tank upon beginning the project, with a small area within the site for its placement, which dictated the location of all components. The pump station was set to meet the requirement of the fifty (50) foot setbacks on the south and West Side. The distance from the wetland and grading requirement came together to drive the placement of the tank and the pump station in its proposed proximity of the two structures.

Member Markham clarified that she understands that the requirement is due to the attempt to keep two diverse businesses from interfering with one another. She questioned if this was typically the reason there would be a greater separation than the proposed.

Mr. Evancoe indicated that building separation could be due to a number of factors. He gave the example of fire safety to prevent a fire from easily moving from one building to another.

Member Markham questioned if the Fire Marshall had any comments to this effect.

Mr. Evancoe continued that often the building separation could be due to an aesthetic desire.

Member Markham indicated that her concern was the overall look of the development. The fact the buildings are close to one another did not concern her because aesthetically she felt the smaller the footprint the better. She did not feel there was an adequate amount of vegetation. She noted the area is one of the main entry points into the Novi Community. Therefore, she preferred to have more screening on the entire site. In regard to the parking spaces, she suggested that the pavement be minimized and the parking spaces be added to the amount of pavement as planned. She stated that although the state does not require the provision of the handicap space, the intent could be accommodated with the provision of two to three spaces near the entrance.

Mr. Mault indicated the area north of the parking lot is a twenty-foot (20’) Sanitary Sewer Easement, which the City requested from DWSD in the agreement to provide the property between the two entities. Realizing there was a 12" sanitary force main to be placed here, he noted their intent to not plant a lot of trees, which would hinder the maintenance of the line. He noted his understanding of a sixteen-inch (16") water line that was to be added to the easement with the sanitary force main. He made the commissioners aware of the two fairly large utilities that would be under pressure in the twenty-foot (20’) easement.

Member Shroyer stated that he liked the façade. He indicated that he did not have a problem with the lack of the four-foot buffer around the building if it meant that the provision of more landscaping and screening to separate the residence from the facility. He felt a handicap area was important. Under ADA requirements, he questioned who could be certain that DWSD would not employ a handicap person in the future. He noted the concern that according to the review summary four different areas did not meet Ordinance requirements. The landscaping review indicated eighteen (18) areas, which did not meet the requirements. He noted the three (3) possible variances from the ZBA and four (4) Planning Commission Waivers. He questioned if the Staff and Consultants were confident that all possible options were explored to make the facility feasible on the proposed property.

Mr. Evancoe indicated the difficulty involved with the proposed site. Ideally a larger site would allow for the buildings to be spaced out, room for the buffer and for the four-foot landscaping. However, the site does not seem to be able to accommodate all the areas. He felt that the majority of the requested waivers/variances were reasonable given the reality of the site.

Nancy McClain City Engineer indicated the City purchased the proposed property and deeded it to DWSD for the purpose of the proposed pumping station. There was a wide search for a property that could handle the pumping station. Site requirements require that the pumping be located in a certain area of the City, which is by the forty-two-inch feed main (the required location the booster station). Although the pumping station will serve adjoining communities, it is mainly for the use of Novi. She indicated that after several negotiations the proposed was the site determined for the pumping station.

Member Shroyer questioned if the proposed project would have helped ease the problems experienced with the recent water main break.

Ms. McClain agreed that it could have helped. She explained that the water main break occurred in an off peak period (three million gallons a day). The ten million-gallon storage could have provided water and allowed flow time, which could have possibly prevented the boiling water advisory. The proposed project will raise pressures on the East Side of M-5 helping the industrial area. The sanitary force main will provide service to section 1 and section 12 near Brightmoor Tabernacle and Erickson development.

Member Shroyer requested comments from the consultants.

David Mifsud, Wetland Consultant stated the proposed plan meets the intent of the Ordinance. He indicated that it is minimizing the wetland impacts and preserving a majority of the buffer. He stated the proposed is the best plan from a wetland perspective.

Member Shroyer indicated that he did not have a problem with the wetlands or the woodlands.

Member Shroyer asked Ms. McGuire if she was comfortable with the exploration of attempts made to resolve the eighteen (18) areas that do not meet ordinance requirements.

Ms. McGuire indicated her request that the applicant make the changes. However, she noted the difficulty with screening of the loading area between the north face of the building and the residence. She explained that it is designed almost entirely within the City Easement. The thirty-eight (38) feet needed to create a six-foot berm is not available. However, the front areas and the screening against the residence to the west could be worked out with additional plantings. She agreed that the applicant could meet the ordinance in these areas.

Member Shroyer questioned if there had been discussion with the petitioner and if they were agreeable.

Ms. McGuire answered, yes.

Member Nagy questioned the exact request being made of the applicant.

Ms. McGuire indicated that the request is to provide the screening for the right-of-way requirement. She explained the grade in this area is very steep. Therefore, to place a 30" berm would be difficult. However, adequate plantings could be provided to screen the area. She noted her request to provide decorative fencing or black vinyl coated chain link fence in place of their proposed chain link fence.

Member Nagy stated that as a matter of good public relations, she felt it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide more screening on the residential side of the property. She understood the lack of the 6’ berm, however, she suggested plantings that could rise to six or seven feet.

Ms. McGuire agreed.

Member Nagy requested that no Austrian Pine be planted. She suggested the addition of shrubbery to the front, which would not affect the sewer line. She questioned the reason for the required waivers/variances with Ms. McGuire’s comments. Member Nagy asked Mr. Evancoe to address the reasoning for the lack of information regarding any noise that could be generated on the proposed site.

Mr. Evancoe stated the site is required to comply with the City’s noise requirements. He did not believe a noise study was required at the current stage. However, he indicated that issue would be addressed with the applicant during Final to ensure there is a clear understanding of the noise that will be generated by the facility. He assured the commission that in the event of a problem, the staff would work with the applicant to address the matter and if need be require a study. However, currently there is not an indicated of a noise problem. He noted the ability to enforce the existing noise ordinance if there was a problem.

Member Nagy asked the applicant for an average standard decibel level that pump stations generate.

Mr. Walsh briefly described the major process equipment involved with the pumping station facility. The water pumps are driven by eight hundred (800) horsepower electric motors, three of which would have a variable frequency drives. The main source of noise would be these variable frequency drives.

Member Nagy asked him to clarify the variables.

Mr. Walsh continued stating that there would be five pumping units, three of which would have the frequency drives. The drives are industrial size electronic controls that allow the speed of the pump motor to be changed. This is necessary because it allows the station to meet various capacities if required by the City of Novi, Commerce Township, West Bloomfield and other communities served by the facility. He noted that throughout his career, he has been the Project Manager for three stations with a similar design. In his experience, a typical noise level for a facility of the proposed size would be less than seventy (70) decibels. He indicated that he did not recall the involvement of noise studies on the last project.

Member Nagy indicated that she felt it was a good idea to have information regarding the noise levels prior to moving further. She questioned if the flat roof could be changed.

Mr. Walsh indicated the need to defer the question to the consultant involved with the design. He requested permission from the Commission to address the issue of whether or not the facility would have helped during the water main break. He stated that it would definitely help due to the ten million gallons of water that would be stored in the reservoir, which would be available as drinking water. He asked the Commission to keep in mind that in addition to drinking water, it would also be available for putting out fires in the City of Novi.

Member Ruyle asked for clarification regarding the handicap parking space issue.

Mr. Walsh indicated that because it is a water treatment facility, the facility is specifically exempt by State Law from the barrier free requirement, which relates to parking and barrier free facilities inside the building. He deferred the matter to Dennis Greene for further comment.

Dennis Greene, Head Water Systems Engineer for Detroit Water/Sewage Department explained that the nature of the equipment used in the facility make it impractical to make it safe for any handicap person to work in. There are other facilities throughout the department, which accommodate the handicap employees. However, he stated the remote pumping stations are not safe for the handicap employees.

Member Ruyle interpreted the proposed project as an industrial establishment and therefore felt it required six (6) parking spaces or a ZBA Variance. He stated that he would not support an approval unless the applicant was granted a ZBA Variance.

Member Paul indicated that no signage information was provided. She questioned the type of sign, the height requirements, the location of its placement and what materials would be used.

Mr. Evancoe indicated that at this stage in the process, the applicant is not required to supply any information relative to signs. He noted this portion of the process was handled at the Building Permit stage, which is handled through the Building Inspections Department. However, he noted that the applicant might have some knowledge of their intentions.

Mr. Walsh indicated the Detroit Water Sewer Department owns forty-two (42) pumping stations throughout Southeastern Michigan. He noted there is signage, which typically follows the local zoning requirements.

Member Paul clarified if there would be lighting on the facility.

Mr. Walsh indicated that the DWSD Security Department is currently developing the specifications. However, the specifications are not completed at this point. He anticipated security lighting around perimeter of the building, the structure and possibly street lighting for the entrance.

Member Paul suggested that the lighting situation, with regard to the residence, be addressed with landscaping. She agreed that the fencing should be a decorative fencing with landscaping. Although there might not be a lot of people visiting the site, she felt that the site would be very visible in the community. Therefore, if a security fence were necessary then she preferred it to be decorative with increased landscaping that would not impair the actual pumping area. She suggested placing the screening closer to the fence. She supported the two parking spaces. She felt the provision of two spaces for the few visitors was sufficient as opposed to the possible runoff to the wetlands from increased pavement.

Member Nagy questioned how the commission could approve a site plan without a lighting plan.

Mr. Evancoe stated if the commission is inclined to require two (2) parking spaces, then he suggested that the motion not make the determination that the use is comparable to an industrial establishment. If this determination were made, then the applicant would need to obtain a ZBA Variance. Instead, the Planning Commission could require the two spaces. He deferred Member Nagy’s question to Barbara McBeth City Planner.

Barbara McBeth, City Planner indicated that the Lighting Plan is not required at the Preliminary Site Plan Review because the property is not abutting Single-Family zoning. However, she noted that it is required at Final.

Mr. Evancoe indicated the Lighting Plan would be reviewed at Final to ensure it does not exceed the foot candle requirements.

Acting Chairperson Canup questioned the likelihood of the property zoned OST remaining a residence for a lengthy period of time. He stated that the Commission could go to great distances to protect the home for a temporary period of time. He questioned if it was reasonable to change the proposed Site Plan to accommodate a home located in an OST zoning, which would more than likely be resold for the value of the property.

Mr. Evancoe stated the owner was notified of the Public Hearing. They have not responded and therefore, he was not aware of any concern(s) they might have. Secondly, he felt it would be speculative to guess how long one may chose to remain in their home. He agreed with Acting Chairperson Canup that properties in similar situations become lucrative for commercial uses.

Acting Chairperson Canup clarified that the proposed façade and tank are brick.

Mr. Evancoe directed Christian Fox Façade Architect to respond.

Christian Fox, Façade Architect, stated that the rendering depicts more brick than what is actually proposed. He noted the vertical banding of E.I.F.S. material. The actual elevations submitted showed the bands to be approximately ten (10) foot wide with twenty-five (25) foot wide bands of brick. He indicated that they meet the percentage requirements of twenty-five percent (25%) E.I.F.S. and seventy-three percent (73%) brick with two percent (2%) stone coping around the top of the building.

Acting Chairperson Canup recalled previous instances in which the façade was misrepresented and the product was not the presented site plan, which the commission thought they were approving. Therefore, did not have a good feeling about the rendering presented. He cautioned the consultants and Staff to not allow another future situation of allowing an inaccurate rendering to be shown to the Commission. In regard to the roofline of the building, he felt the building would have a utility appearance. He suggested a steel sloped roof to make its appearance more presentable as a gateway to the City.

Mr. Evancoe indicated that he believed the Commission might be within its purview to make that requirement. The Façade Ordinance specifically addresses the matter of compatibility with surrounding land uses. He noted that a sloped roof would be in character with the residence directly adjacent.

Member Canup asked the petitioner if the placement of a pitched roof would impair the function of the building in any manner.

Mr. Greene questioned if the provision of a pitched roof would impact the height restrictions of the ordinance.

Mr. Evancoe believed that OST zoning to have a forty-six (46) foot height limitation.

Mr. Greene stated that the changing of the roofline would not in any way impact the operation of the pumping station.

Acting Chairperson Canup clarified that there were no vents or other features located on the roof that would be impacted.

Mr. Greene answered, correct.

Ms. McGuire cautioned the Commission to not forget the landscaping between the drive in and the residence. She stated that whether the adjacent property remains a residence or not, the landscaping would help mitigate the appearance of the large tank. She questioned if Acting Chairperson Canup was suggesting a roof for the building or the tank.

Acting Chairperson Canup noted his comments were in reference to the building. He did not foresee the placement of a roof on the tank as appearing presentable.

Member Kocan clarified the Planning Commission’s determination for the provision of two (2) parking spaces, that the proposed project is not comparable to an industrial establishment and that it is a specific use.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Nagy, MOTION AMENDED: In the matter of Haggerty Pumping Station SP-01-71 to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Wetland Permit, Woodland Permit, direct the Zoning Board of Appeals to require two (2) parking spaces, contingent upon the ZBA variance for the required building separation, Planning Commission Waiver for the required four foot (4’) green space adjacent to the building recognizing that there is additional green space on the east side of the building in the wetland and woodland area, Planning Commission Waiver for the requirement of the raised end island due to the minimum number of parking spaces that area required, subject to the conditions and recommendations of the Staff and Consultants, stipulation regarding landscaping along the driveway on the west side and the north side that abuts the residential property with the consideration that there will be utilities in that area and attempt to do as much landscaping and buffering as possible, and confirmation that the noise levels will not exceed 70 decibels daytime noise level and the addition of a sloped roof.

Mr. Evancoe clarified that the Wetland Permit is a minor use permit and therefore would be handled administratively.

Acting Chairperson Canup asked Mr. Evancoe if the motion appeared to include all the issues.

Mr. Evancoe indicated the screening of the truck service areas and overhead truck loading/unloading doors for the wall or berm as required in the OST District.

Member Kocan clarified if the Commission required the landscaping, then they could waiver whether it is a berm or wall. She noted the determination that a wall could not be provided due to the utilities and that a berm was not feasible.

Member Kocan amended her motion to include the Planning Commission Waiver.

Member Nagy accepted the amendment.

Member Kocan questioned if the black decorative fencing needed to be addressed in the motion.

Member Markham amended the motion to include the black vinyl coated decorative fencing as opposed to the proposed chain link fencing.

Mr. Evancoe noted that the indefinite number of the types of ornamental fencing, which vary in style, design, colors and materials. Therefore, he was not certain the best way to define the fencing other than to give the Staff leeway to work out a fence that catches the spirit of the Commission’s desire. Otherwise, he indicated that the Commission might need to specify the exact fence.

Member Kocan questioned if black decorative fencing other than chain link fencing was sufficient.

Acting Chairperson Canup did not feel that the chain link should be excluded. He felt that the option should be left to the Planning Department Staff if no other fence was feasible. He noted his understanding of the security needed.

Mr. Greene indicated the security system used utilizes shaker sensors located on the chain link fence. He noted this as the reasoning for the chain link type of fence.

Acting Chairperson Canup suggested that the motion maker consider Mr. Greene’s comment regarding the specific need for the chain link fence. He felt that a black chain link fence appeared unobtrusive when compared to the "galvanized look". He suggested that in its entirety, the fencing, posts and rails be colored black. He stated that in sensitivity to the security the Commission should take the presented information in account.

Ms. McGuire requested that the applicant provide clarification of the barbed wire located at the top of the fence.

Acting Chairperson Canup suggested that the Commission clearly define the minimum found to be acceptable and then allow for the leeway for the matter to be handle in-house.

Mr. Greene indicated that the facilities typically do not have barbed wire fences.

Acting Chairperson Canup clarified that there would be no barbed wired strands around the top of the fence.

Mr. Greene answered, correct.

Acting Chairperson Canup commented that a stable fencing may not provide the ability for a security system with shaker sensors to function properly.

Member Kocan clarified if the motion should include the wording "fencing as appropriate as decorative as possible yet feasible for security reasons".

Acting Chairperson Canup indicated that the minimum standards should be set to define the understanding that the fence is required to be a minimum of a black vinyl coated chain link with all accessories and hardware also being coated black.

Member Kocan clarified that this would be the minimum.

Acting Chairperson Canup answered, correct.

Member Kocan accepted the amendment to her motion.

Member Nagy accepted the amendment.

Ms. Brock questioned if Member Kocan intended to include the Variance for the requirement of the berm on the right-of-way.

Member Kocan noted her understanding that the berm was feasible. She asked Ms. McGuire to clarify the matter.

Ms. McGuire indicated that the berm on the right-of-way was feasible in part. However, it was not feasible across the entire frontage due to the severe drop off to the Wetland.

Member Kocan clarified if the matter could be addressed with the clarification that a 30" berm is required to be provided where feasible and a variance sought for the areas where the berm is not feasible.

Mr. Schultz indicated that the Zoning Board of Appeals would determine the granting of a variance. The Planning Commission needs to determine in their motion that the approval is subject to the applicant obtaining the ZBA Variance or partial variance.

Member Kocan amended her motion.

Member Nagy accepted the amendment.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Nagy, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Haggerty Pumping Station SP-01-71 to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Woodland Permit, direct the Zoning Board of Appeals to require two (2) parking spaces, contingent upon obtaining a ZBA variance for the required building separation and the applicant obtaining a ZBA Variance or partial variance for the berm on the right-of-way, Planning Commission Waiver for the required four foot (4’) green space adjacent to the building recognizing that there is additional green space on the east side of the building in the wetland and woodland area, Planning Commission Waiver for the berm or wall around the truck loading area which is to be landscaped, Planning Commission Waiver for the requirement of the raised end island due to the minimum number of parking spaces that area required, subject to the conditions and recommendations of the Staff and Consultants, stipulation regarding landscaping along the driveway on the west side and the north side that abuts the residential property with the consideration that there will be utilities in that area and attempt to do as much landscaping and buffering as possible, and confirmation that the noise levels will not exceed 70 decibels daytime noise level, subject to the minimum standard of a black vinyl coated decorative ornamental chain link fencing with all accessories and hardware also being coated black and the addition of a sloped roof.

Yes: Canup, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer

No: None

Ms. Brock informed the Commission of the member who expressed an interest to be considered for the Master Planning and Zoning Committee. The member names include Member Nagy, Member Markham and Commissioner Shroyer.

Acting Chairperson Canup questioned the current committee members.

Ms. Brock indicated that currently the committee has two (2) members, Member Canup and Member Richards.

Acting Chairperson Canup clarified if Member Richards gave an indication of whether or not he would like to remain on the Master Planning and Zoning Committee.

Ms. Brock indicated that Member Richards did not request to be removed from the Committee.

Acting Chairperson Canup clarified if there were two (2) vacancies.

Ms. Brock answered, yes.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Canup, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To appoint Member Nagy to the Master Planning and Zoning Committee.

Yes: Canup, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer

No: None

Moved by Nagy, seconded by Ruyle, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To appoint Member Markham to the Master Planning and Zoning Committee.

Yes: Canup, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer

No: None

Acting Chairperson Canup suggested setting a meeting date for the Master Planning and Zoning Committee since all members of the Committee were present.

Mr. Evancoe suggested not setting a committee meeting date until the Commission has taken action on the agenda item regarding Sandstone v. City of Novi litigation. If the Planning Commission chose to accept the Public Hearing date, as suggested in the Resolution that they are being asked to adopt, then the Committee Meeting date may need to be more immediate.

Acting Chairperson Canup clarified if the item "Scheduling of the Public Hearing For Amending the Master Plan Map" was tentatively set for January 9, 2002.

Mr. Evancoe answered, correct. He recommended that the Master Planning and Zoning Committee meeting date be set for December 20, 2001.

Acting Chairperson Canup questioned if there were specific times that were good or bad for the members of the Master Planning and Zoning Committee.

Member Nagy noted that her schedule demanded no preference, providing that the meeting take place after the working hours of the day.

Member Markham noted the flexibility of her schedule with the exception of the hours around 2:00 p.m.

Acting Chairperson Canup clarified that Member Nagy would be available after working hours December 20, 2001.

Member Nagy indicated that she would be available after 4:00 p.m.

Acting Chairperson Canup asked Member Markham if meeting after 4:00 p.m. was feasible.

Mr. Evancoe interjected and noted that in the anticipation of the possible meeting date and the notification requirement, a notice was generated for 6:00 p.m.

Acting Chairperson Canup recalled receiving a phone call a week prior in which he indicated his previous commitment at 6:00 p.m. Therefore, he was not available to meet at 6:00 p.m. However, he was available at 4:00 p.m., 4:30 p.m. or 5:00 p.m.

Mr. Evancoe apologized. He indicated that the meeting could be held with three (3) members.

Acting Chairperson Canup noted Member Richards’ absence and anticipated that he would not be available for a meeting on December 20, 2001.

Member Nagy requested clarification on the notification requirements. She questioned if there was a posting requirement.

Mr. Evancoe indicated that there was a 24-hour advance posting notice.

Member Nagy asked if the committee members were available Friday, December 21, 2001.

Acting Chairperson Canup indicated that his availability was not definite.

Member Markham indicated that she could be available and requested to be notified as soon as possible.

Member Nagy stated her preference to have Member Canup present at the meeting. Therefore, she felt it was important to accommodate his schedule. She noted his long standing commitment on the Master Planning and Zoning Committee and his prior indications made regarding his availability. She requested that the Planning Department coordinate a feasible date. She noted her willingness to meet on December 24, 2001.

Acting Chairperson Canup questioned if City Offices were open on December 24, 2001.

Mr. Evancoe indicated that the City Offices were closed on December 24, 2001 and December 25, 2001.

Acting Chairperson Canup questioned if City Offices were open on December 26, 2001.

Member Nagy indicated that she was available on December 26, 2001.

Acting Chairperson Canup suggested setting the Master Planning and Zoning Committee meeting date for Friday, December 21, 2001 at 6:00 p.m.

Member Nagy suggested 6:30 p.m.

Acting Chairperson Canup agreed to 6:30 p.m.

Mr. Evancoe suggested confirming with the City Attorney’s availability.

Acting Chairperson Canup stated that the matter would be a one (1) meeting decision. He questioned the need to hold the meeting before January 1, 2002.

Mr. Evancoe indicated that the commission packets would be distributed on January 4, 2002 for the January 9, 2002 Planning Commission meeting.

Acting Chairperson Canup noted that it deemed most appropriate to hold the meeting on Friday, December 21, 2002 at 6:30 p.m. He clarified if this was feasible.

Mr. Schultz indicated that representation from the City Attorney office would be present.

Acting Chairperson Canup clarified that the date/time was feasible for City Administration.

Mr. Evancoe answered, yes.

Acting Chairperson Canup questioned where the meeting would be held.

Mr. Evancoe noted the attempt to reserve the Activities Room for the meeting due to the possibility of the people anticipated. However, as the location is confirmed, phone calls would be made to the committee members.

Member Ruyle requested notification to all members of the Planning Commission.

Mr. Evancoe answered, okay.

Schedule a public hearing for January 9, 2002, at 7:30 P.M., for the purpose of hearing public comment and input on whether to amend the Master Plan Map of the Novi 2020 Master Plan for Land Use, so as to classify the land which is a portion of the North Novi Park being considered for transfer in partial settlement of the Sandstone v City of Novi litigation, as described in the City Council’s Resolution of October 15, 2001.

Acting Chairperson Canup noted the expediency was urgent to set the public hearing date. Therefore, if there were not problems, he requested scheduling the meeting for January 9, 2002 at 7:30 p.m.

Mr. Evancoe reminded the Commission of the Resolution, which was provided. He noted the suggestion made that the Resolution be read into the record prior to the Commission’s adoption.

Acting Chairperson Canup directed Mr. Evancoe to read the Resolution.

Mr. Evancoe read the Resolution Setting a Public Hearing on Amending the Master Plan Map.

"The Planning Commission is aware that a substantial money judgment was entered in favor of Sandstone against the City of Novi, and that, with costs and interest, the judgment now approaches $70,000,000.00. The Planning Commission is also aware that, if the case is not settled, there is a prospect that all property owners in the City would be assessed in substantial amounts each year for a period of 15 years, and accordingly, a serious effort has been made by the City to secure a compromise settlement with Sandstone. The Planning Commission has been advised that: the City worked toward a resolution that would contemplate a non-cash transfer to Sandstone because the City does not have the cash to make a meaningful offer; after an extensive review of all City-owned property, the only available property that satisfies the needs of Sandstone represents a portion of the area designated on the Master Plan map as North Novi Park; and that, after holding a public hearing, the City Council adopted a Resolution of October 15, 2001 approving the concept of a settlement that would include a transfer of a portion of the areas designated on the Master Plan Map as North Novi Park to Sandstone. At this point, the area designated on the map as North Novi Park is nearly 700 acres in area, and the City Council’s Resolution indicates the possibility of transferring approximately 100 of such acres to Sandstone. The City Council’s Resolution contemplated that a request would be made to the Oakland County Circuit Court to approve the legal aspects of the settlement, particularly relating to whether the transfer of the land to Sandstone was permissible under the Home Rule Cities Act. The City Administration proceeded to the Circuit Court to seek judicial approval of the legal issues presented. After a full hearing, the Court entered an Order on December 11, 2001, which held that, while most aspects of the settlement concept were approved, in order to provide the full approval of the Court, the following action could be taken: If the City’s Master Plan is amended so as to reflect a designation of the property to be transferred in a manner other than "park" . . . it is the determination of this Court that, without further action on the part of any party, the land in question may be transferred as contemplated in the [City Council Resolution of October 15, 2001] in conformance with MCL 117.5(e) [the Home Rule Cities Act]. The Planning Commission desires to consider whether to amend the Master Plan consistent with the holding of the Judge, as quoted above. In light of the proposed settlement outlined in the City Council’s Resolution, the new designation to be considered for the property should be multiple-family residential. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED that a public hearing will be scheduled for January 9, 2002, at 7:30 P.M., for the purpose of hearing public comment and input on whether to amend the Master Plan Map of the Novi 20/20 Master Plan for Land Use, so as to classify the land which is a portion of the North Novi Park being considered for transfer in partial settlement of the Sandstone v City of Novi litigation, as described in the City Council’s Resolution of October 15, 2001, and as shown on the attached drawing. The amendment to be considered at the hearing would include a Map reclassification of the land from Community Park to Multiple Family, or to such other classification found to be appropriate by the Planning Commission, and a map or text statement that the land is not required for park purposes by the City. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that notice of the public hearing shall be given in the manner provided by law."

Member Kocan questioned if after having heard the resolution, if the Commission could move to act on the Resolution.

Acting Chairperson Canup answered, yes.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Shroyer, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adopt the Resolution scheduling the Public Hearing for January 9, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. for amending the Master Plan Map.

Yes: Canup, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer

No: None

Member Kocan requested that in addition to the information regarding the recommendations from the Master Plan Committee, Court minutes if appropriate, any court cases that set precedence for this type of determination, minutes from the City Council Public Hearing and minutes from the most recent Parks and Recreation meeting (the discussion regarding amending the Master Plan).

Member Nagy requested the minutes of the Audience Participation from the December 17, 2001 City Council Meeting. She indicated the Parks and Recreation meeting that Member Kocan made reference to was held on December 13, 2001. She indicated that the Court does not have minutes available and their records are in the form of transcripts.

Mr. Schultz indicated the Order referred to in the resolution could be provided.

Acting Chairperson Canup clarified if the agenda has been set for the Regular Planning Commission meeting on January 9, 2002.

Member Paul indicate the community question(s) regarding the amount that would be paid in taxes. She questioned if information could be made available to indicate to the homeowners the actual tax amount they would be expected to pay in relation to their home. She indicated that those for or against the park could then be made aware of the amount they would be paying for fifteen (15) years.

Mr. Schultz indicated that her request could be provided to the extent of the information had. He stated that he would work with Administration to obtain as much of the needed information as possible to address her request.

Acting Chairperson Canup agreed with Member Paul’s comments.

Consideration of the request of Maybury, LLC for approval of the Preliminary Site Plan, Woodlands Permit, and Wetlands Permit. The subject property is located in Section 32, on the north side of Eight Mile Road between Beck and Garfield Roads. The developer proposes 106 detached condominium units on 134.75 acres. The property is proposed as a Residential Unit Development and is zoned (RA) Residential Acreage.

Mr. Evancoe referred to the site photographs. The Land Use Map indicates Single-Family Residential use with the exception to the far northwest corner of the site. The Land Use designation for Northville Township is park or residential and the City of Northville is planned for First Density Residential. The proposed property is zoned R-A (Residential Acreage). However, the proposed project is a Residential Unit Development (RUD). Adjacent land uses include the Bellagio subdivision directly to the north of the site, vacant properties to the east and west, residential agricultural use in the southeast corner. The Site Plan indicates 40% of the lots at 20,000 to 25,000 square feet and others exceeding 1-acre. The proposed condominium consists of 106-detached single-family homes. Wetlands: A non-minor use Wetland Permit is required. Woodland: A Woodland Permit is required. He noted the comment that the applicant should seek another route for the sanitary sewer. Currently the sanitary sewer runs through high quality woodlands in the north of the site. He referenced a comment from the woodlands consultant, Linda Lemke, "it however, that the RUD agreement as written as approved does allow for a temporary sanitary sewer to be installed from the Bellagio subdivision. He suggested giving Ms. Lemke’s the opportunity to speak in regard to her remark because he believed that she had good intentions to reduce the destruction of woodlands to the greatest extent possible. He believed that the spirit of her comments should be kept in mind. A preservation easement for the preserved woodlands and other local plant and animal habitats is recommended, which could also be addressed in the covenants of Master Deed as described in the RUD Agreement. He noted that along the Right-of-Way, a 30-inch berm is required where no woodlands occur. The 30-inch berm is not clearly depicted on the plans. Mr. Evancoe noted the Consultant letters indicate that a City Council Waiver from the Subdivision Ordinance is required due the required access stubs every thirteen hundred (1300) feet around the perimeter of the site. He noted the one access stub shown on the plan that would provide access to the vacant property to the west of the subject’s site. The remaining perimeter of the property does not provide stubs and therefore, the City Council Waiver would be necessary. Traffic Engineering Review: The boulevard island in the eastern access drive exceeds the City’s standard maximum allowable length of 100 feet requiring a City Council Waiver of the Design and Construction Standards. The island could be modified by the addition of a break after the standard island length of 35 feet, which would bring the island into conformance with the Design and Construction Standards.

Acting Chairperson Canup asked the petitioner if they had any further comments.

Joe Galvin represented Maybury Park Estates. He requested Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Wetland Permit and Woodland Permit. The Site Plan presented is a part of a RUD Agreement, which was approved by the City Council. It has been drawn in accordance with the provisions of the RUD Agreement. Therefore, he requested that it be approved as it is set forth in the agreement. He commented on the current situation with respect to the sewer. A temporary sewer has been approved by the City Council and it is shown on the Site Plan. He stated that the sewer runs from the Bellagio subdivision. He noted the attempt to obviate the need for the temporary sewer to be constructed. Mr. Galvin designated the area of the permanent sewer location, which has been designed in accordance with the RUD Agreement provisions. An easement from the property owner has been obtained and the sewer would continue up a "jog" and straight across to connect with the current sewer. He hoped that use of the temporary sewer would not be necessary. With respect to the island on the easterly entryway from Eight Mile Road, he believed that the City Council Waiver was previously granted by virtue of the approval of the Site Plan. He pointed out a physical break and noted that only Lot 1 and Lot 2 were effected. He explained that Lot 1 would need to come out of its driveway and travel around the island. He noted a location for the placement of the driveway for Lot 2 to avoid possible safety issues. He indicated that the issue was before the Planning Commission on two previous occasions. The Planning Commission voted favorably to the City Council the RUD designation. The City Council initially granted approval subject to working out the water, sanitary sewer and site drainage requirements, which were resolved to the satisfaction of the City Council. For these reasons, he requested that the commission grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Wetland Permit and Woodland Permit. He commented on the reference to a potential ZBA Variance in respect to the frontage on Eight Mile where there is no wooded area. He believed that the berming could be provided or the ZBA variance obtained. Therefore, he did not object to an approval subject to this condition.

Member Kocan asked the City Attorney to clarify the Mr. Galvin’s comment regarding the variances being permitted with regard to the 189-foot entryway. She stated that she interpreted the RUD as indicating that they would need to comply with what the Planning Commission finalized as the Preliminary Site Plan Approval.

Mr. Schultz agreed that the text of the RUD states that. However, the RUD Agreement also includes the attached plan. Mr. Galvin’s point is that the attached plan shows the location of the island and its size as it is shown now on the site plan. Similarly that it does not show access points around the perimeter at the 1300-foot intervals. In discussion with City Attorney Gerald Fisher, he stated that based upon what the plan shows in the absence of something in the City Council minutes to the contrary, they agreed that the plan showing the two as they exist is what would govern the two site plan issues. He indicated that Beth Brock was currently obtaining the City Council minutes to find if there was a qualification. He stated that although it is a concept plan, some aspects become cemented. If the island is shown where it is and how it is, then he noted there could be an "uphill battle" with the adoption of that plan to change the issue.

Member Kocan did not feel there was a reason that it could not comply with the City Ordinances. There is not an issue of layout in the property or wetlands or woodland. Therefore, she waited for the response on the matter because she did not want to support that particular waiver. As part of the RUD contract, Section 9 states that in order to obtain additional building credits, it is imperative that there shall be active and passive recreation areas within Maybury Park Estates. Although she noted several passive areas, she did not find any active park land areas. She recalled her discussion at a previous Planning Commission meeting regarding the open woodchip path area located between Lot 35 and Lot 41. She requested that active park land be provided in that area. She questioned if McGuire felt that open space 3, abutting Lots 35 to Lots 41, would be the most appropriate place for this active park land. She also noted open area in open space 1 and open space 2. However, she felt that open space 3 appeared to be the most feasible location. Member Kocan noted the conditions in the review letters. She clarified if these would be requirements, specifically legal agreements with Northville Township and the City of Novi with regard to temporary water service. She questioned if the Commission or the City would be taking up the situation at the intersection of Eight Mile and Beck Road, where the level of service could potentially be at Level F as time goes on. She referenced Item #25.2 of the traffic letter, which indicated that a level service of D or better might be obtained. She questioned if the City was responsible for approaching the issue or if it was half Wayne County and half Oakland County. She questioned if the City should be acting to help mitigating the level of service.

Mr. Arroyo stated that the Eight Mile and Beck Road intersection is part of the City Road Bond Improvements and is targeted. Currently, his office is evaluating the intersection and would be recommending improvements to improve the level of service. He noted that there are funds allocated in the City Road Bond to pay for improvement for the intersection.

Member Kocan noted discussion of proposed restoration and enhancement of the wetlands and woodlands. She stated the woodland/wetland consulting is done in house. She questioned who in the City would monitor the restoration enhancement.

Ms. McGuire indicated that according to Ms. Lemke, the most feasible area to locate active parks or playgrounds would be the area behind Lot 35 through Lot 41. The other areas are regulated wetlands, woodlands or contiguous habitat areas and should not be used for active recreation.

Member Kocan questioned if it was necessary to have confirmation from the petitioner that the area would be developed as an active park land or should it be a stipulation.

Member Kocan indicated that it would be a stipulation.

Member Kocan questioned if confirmation was determined from the City Council minutes regarding the 189-foot island and the entranceway.

Mr. Schultz indicated it would be a stipulation.

Member Shroyer agreed with the comments regarding the Boulevard. He felt that it could be brought into compliance. He questioned the size of the green space. He added that active could be defined as ten (10) feet for a tether ball pole.

Ms. McGuire clarified if he was asking for the required area.

Member Shroyer answered, correct.

Ms. McGuire deferred the matter to Ms. Lemke.

Ms. Lemke did not recall a minimum or maximum requirement in the RUD language. She indicated that typically she would "call out" a figure in her review letter should there be one. Her review letter dated November 8, 2001 "called out" the matter because she felt that some form of active recreation was needed. She stated that based on her assessment of the natural features on the site, this was the only area that could be used for that purpose.

Member Shroyer felt that the idea of having minimum requirements should be explored. He asked her to clarify the size of the area between Lots 35 and Lot 41.

Mr. Galvin indicated that he believed that the area to be approximately 1-acre.

Member Shroyer stated that an acre is adequate for Whiffleball or passing a football. However, he did not feel it was large enough in its shape for what he considered highly active sports of teenagers, etc… He requested that the additional planting along the western side of the active area be kept at a minimum to provide the maximum green space. He noted the five trees shown in the northern portion, behind Lot 73 abutting Bellagio’s Lot 32 and Lot 33, which are indicated as proposed trees. He stated the area appeared to be depth of approximately 100 feet and a majority of the trees would be removed for the housing. Therefore, he expressed his concern of the buffered area between the Bellagio homes, particularly on Lot 73.

Steve Deak, Landscape Architect with Robert Leighton Associates stated the proposed trees are Red Oaks. Their placement is due between the lot and the property line for the water main coming from the Bellagio development. He stated the area is already being disturbed and the intent to place the trees is to restore the buffer in that area.

Member Shroyer clarified if the water line was coming on the eastern portion of the property.

Mr. Deak clarified that he was speaking of a water line and not the sewer. He added that the water line ran parallel across the parcel.

Acting Chairperson Canup questioned if the water line would disturb the existing trees.

Mr. Deak answered, yes. He stated that some trees would be removed as shown on the Woodland Plan.

Acting Chairperson Canup questioned the size of the water line.

Mr. Deak stated that he was not certain without checking.

Acting Chairperson Canup suggested 6" or 8" or 12".

Mr. Deak indicated that he only had reduction to reference. He believed it was a 12" line.

Acting Chairperson Canup questioned if there was a reason that the water line was not directional bored under the trees to avoid disturbing the green.

Mr. Deak indicated that the engineer would address that question, however, he/she is not present.

Acting Chairperson Canup indicated that the Commission could make this a part of the motion.

Member Shroyer restated his concern of the wooded areas specifically between the lots. He noted his concern of serpentine roads (roads that go in an out based on the property with an ingress and egress at each major point of entrance or exit from subdivisions). He asked Mr. Schultz if the Commission could require the developer to widen the road the entire length of their property as opposed to the access points.

Mr. Schultz noted the legitimacy of Member Shroyer’s concern. However, the concept plan that went to the City Council after the Planning Commission recommendation entitles them to approval of Site Plan to the extent that it meets that general layout. Widening roads, shifting locations of these things is at this point for this plan a little beyond the purview of the Commission. However, as a general concept and traffic issue he did not disagree.

Member Shroyer clarified if future plans could.

Mr. Schultz answered, yes.

Member Shroyer noted that the Commission could recommend to the developer to consider the matter.

Mr. Schultz agreed.

Member Shroyer stated in long range Master Plan he would like to push forward any widening of the roads would bear the cost to the developer as opposed to passing it onto taxpayers.

Member Nagy referenced Item #14 of the traffic review letter dated October 24, 2001. She questioned if it would tie into the road improvement. She clarified if they are agreeing to do this.

Mr. Arroyo answered correct. He indicated that these are minor amendments to what has already been shown on the plan.

Member Nagy referenced Item #12. She inquired whether or not a development is likely to occur across from the entranceway and not a matter that could be commented on. She felt that 189-foot was long. She noted the recommendation to include one medium break after 35-feet. She questioned if three (3) breaks could be made.

Mr. Arroyo noted the options. However, he indicated that the options would depend upon how it was approved. The City island length varies from generally 35-feet to 100-feet. He noted the preference to have 35-foot breaks to allow an emergency vehicle could quickly U-turn in the event of a wrong turn verses traveling a distance to turn around. Also the island could be split with one break with 100-foot long section and an 80-foot long section, which would meet the Ordinance requirement.

Member Nagy agreed. She asked Mr. Galvin if the proposed sanitary sewers were being taken into consideration. She recalled the City Council meeting, at which they indicated there were no proposed sewers. Therefore, she did not want the developer or anyone involved to be misled.

Member Ruyle recalled informational materials identifying the open space between Lots 35 and Lot 41 as being between two and three acres in size. He noted page 2 of Ms. Lemke’s letter, which identified the area between Lots 35 and Lot 41 as being the most feasible area for the playground. He felt the area would allow for a nice playground area with playground equipment.

Member Paul questioned why it was necessary to connect the water with Northville. She recalled that her subdivision was built during a time that there was a moratorium. The sewer was City, and the residents had to have wells. The residents had to hire someone individually to have the hook up obtained for City water and a meter was installed. Her concern with hooking up with Northville’s sewer/water was that there could be a cost to the residents at a later time. She asked Mr. Evancoe if this has been examined and the reasoning for the hook up.

Mr. Evancoe deferred the question to Victoria Weber.

Engineering Consultant Victoria Weber indicated the reasoning is due to a problem with water pressure in the southern portion of the City. The cost to the residents would have to be discussed as part of the inter community agreement between the City of Northville. She believed that the Department of Public Works was currently in the process of working on this agreement. Therefore, it would be a matter that they would need to address.

Member Paul questioned if it were possible to have a well, which would not be related to the city water pressure on the southern portion of the City of Novi.

Ms. Weber indicated that typically Ordinance does not allow wells. However, the State allows the use of wells. Another issue that would arise with the use of wells is the provision of fire protection to the homes in the area. She noted this as one of the reasons the City has an agreement to have Northville service that portion of the City of Novi with water until sufficient water pressure is available.

Member Paul asked if the Pumping Station would be in a "timely fashion" to be able to provide the proper pressure to the Maybury property.

Ms. Weber stated the Pumping Station would help in the situation. She noted the discussion of a possible booster station that might be installed from Twelve Mile Road to Grand River that would cross over I-96. She added that it is currently in the process of right-of-way acquisition. She noted that the booster station would help the area the most.

Member Paul clarified if there would need to be more pumping stations in the City.

Ms. Weber answered, correct.

Ms. Weber also wanted to comment regarding the temporary sanitary sewer lift station and the slim chance of the need for a temporary pump station. The City has the necessary easements to construct the permanent sanitary sewer, which would be coming in from the east off from Beck Road. Currently the preparation of the final construction plans are in process, with the goal to construct the sewer this winter.

Member Paul commented on the manner for which the road moved through the system of the long property. Recently, the Council discussed Sunrise Boulevard and stop signs. The proposed site has many intersections that come into a relatively long site from north to south. She questioned if the Commission could recommend the placement of stop signs to avoid any problem in the future. She referenced the Traffic Report, which indicated 1110 trips.

Mr. Arroyo indicated that many of Member Paul’s concerns were raised when the plan first came forward for review as a RUD Plan. Concerns such as the straightness of the road network and the potential of increased speeds were some of the issues. The applicant made changes to the road layout in attempt to break up some of the streets and provide for more curvilinear make up of the network in hope to lead to a reduction in speeds and the need for unnecessary stop signs. The issue of stop signs can not be addressed at this table because it requires a vote of a governing body. Typically, it would not be ideal to put stop signs in place until a problem has been identified. The situation with Sunrise Boulevard is ongoing because it allows for the opportunity to study, obtain information to determine the best course of action. A review of whether or not initial traffic control signs would be appropriate would be reviewed at Final. He added that this is a normal course of action taken when evaluating residential projects. Depending upon various conditions and the analysis, there may be some signs recommended. Although additional traffic control signs may be needed in the future, he noted that it could not be determined at this time. He recapped that at this point, there were improvement made, an additional evaluation would be done before the Site Plan received Final Site Plan Approval and recommendations made on Traffic Control Signs. Additional signs could be added in the future if they were necessary.

Member Paul noted the impact with curvy roads with north/south view point or an east/west viewpoint. Although typically subdivisions a driver may come to a stop before turning, it is not always the case. Therefore, she felt the situation then becomes a public safety issue, particularly with young children at play. She felt that the stop signs should be considered with the proposed narrow roads.

Mr. Arroyo indicated that the roads are standard City roads. Therefore, the roads are not exceptionally narrow. The roads are standard, would be constructed to all the road standards and would be public roads. As part of the Final Engineering Review, the City engineers will check for site distance to ensure the curvature is not such that one could not see safely ahead. Therefore, if there were children playing in the street the driver would have sufficient time to stop.

Member Paul questioned if there were any recommendation for the two islands in regard to water to the site or electricity for front entry light for safety.

Mr. Evancoe stated that the islands on Eight Mile Road would be reviewed with the Final Landscape Plan. He indicated that the islands would need to comply with the city requirements in terms of irrigation and maintenance within the covenants and restrictions. He questioned if there was a lighting requirement for signage. However, if the applicant proposed lighting, it would be reviewed.

Member Paul asked if a street light with a decorative lamppost could be placed in the center of the island or if the Implementation Committee could explore the option. Frequently, the light would be a cost to the new residents or a cost to the City because of the placement of an illuminating system across the street from the subdivision to avoid interfering with the lighting in the actual island. She suggested addressing this issue prior to the construction of the road or electrical components. She suggested the illumination of the actual signs to allow for the subdivision to be properly found by emergency vehicles.

Mr. Evancoe agreed with her idea. He believed that most of the subdivision entrance signs were illuminated.

Member Paul indicated the residents of Westmont Village had to pay for the illumination of the front sign at a later time. She stated the Westmont Village sign is only on one side of the road. Therefore if the Fire/EMS were coming from Ten Mile Road traveling east, the sign would not be visible. The sign is only visible when traveling west. Therefore, she asked that the location for placement of the sign be determined. If it were to be placed in the middle of the island with signage on both sides she noted was one thing. However, if it were to be placed on a retention wall, it should be visible from both the east and west and it should be illuminated properly. She restated her suggestion to have decorative lamppost prior to the placement of the trees.

Member Markham stated the RUD specifically calls out that there shall be both active and passive recreation. It also states, "all such areas shall be constructed by the developer, maintained by the developer or the Association of Homeowners created for Maybury Park". She believed the intent of this paragraph in the RUD was to help to develop recreational in that subdivision in a manner that is better than has been done previously within the City of Novi. The analysis of active and passive recreation that was done in the most recent the Master Plan stated there was plenty of park land with a deficit in the category in active recreation in the community. Specifically called out as active recreation were items such as soccer fields, ball fields, indoor pools, sand volleyball courts, tennis courts, golf course and outdoor basketball courts. She noted that she would be looking for the proposed development to include in the Final Site Plan items such as outdoor tennis courts and outdoor basketball courts. She believed this was the intent of requiring active recreation built by the developer. Ten years ago, her subdivision was built with the plan for a three acre park with the intention of active recreation. The subdivision was finished by the developer with no active recreation built. She noted that because the homeowners could not agree on what should be placed there, nothing was built. She believed the placement of a neighborhood park inside the subdivision was the intent. Therefore, she looked for specific permanent constructions by the developer in the Final Site Plan to meet the intent of active recreation. She referenced the Master Plan, which indicated the City’s deficit of over twenty (20) tennis courts in this community. A single or double tennis court in the proposed subdivision would allow a family to utilize it for recreation. She wanted the two acre area to be further defined as more than simply "active recreation".

Acting Chairperson Canup stated that stub roads tend to be "haunting". The Stub roads are placed with good intentions until a development is proposed "next door". He questioned if it would be a deed restriction or a deed notice to state that the stub road is in place to be used by an adjacent development. He stated that a fence or a gate should not be put up hindering its intent. It should be made clear to all those residing in the subdivision that the stub road would be a connecting road at some time. He questioned Mr. Schultz if this were a possibility.

Mr. Schultz indicated that the discretion in this process lies within the City Council. The City Council negotiates the agreement and makes the determination as to the general conceptual layout. Upon its return to the Planning Commission, the decisions that are not ordinance based requirement or checking the plan against the approved plan by the City Council, no longer fall within the Commission’s province. He indicated that the commission’s decision is not a recommendation to City Council, it is a decision on the Site Plan. He advised the Commission of their two inquiries: 1) Does it meet the Conceptual Plan? 2) Does it meet the Ordinance requirements? Mr. Schultz stated that he was not aware any place in the agreement where Member Canup’s concern was covered or an Ordinance Standard that could be referenced that could make it a requirement.

Member Canup clarified that they could ask the petitioner to make every buyer of the lot aware of the stub street and its intention. In the previous situations, he stated the residents have protested against the development from coming into their property. However, he noted that it is the City’s property. He stated that this should be understood to avoid another situation similar to the recent problem across the street with the Churchill Crossing Development.

Mr. Galvin stated the stub street has been located as requested by the City. He noted discussion with neighboring property owner to determine their location preference to integrate into their development. He agreed to place the information in a deed restriction if the Commission preferred.

Member Canup clarified if the information could be placed on a deed restriction.

Mr. Galvin answered, yes. However, he questioned the utility of it. He clarified that there was no lack of willingness on his part to cooperate.

Member Canup stated that the buyers should be informed someway of the connecting street.

Mr. Galvin stated that he clearly understood the issue as he was involved with the other project Member Canup was referring to.

Member Canup clarified if the trees would be removed for the placement of a water line.

Mr. Galvin stated the restriction on Bellagio, which leaves no question to have an opaque screen. He stated that it is there and it will be there.

Member Canup clarified if the water line was coming through the northerly end of the property, into Bellagio through existing trees.

Mr. Deak noted the currently location of the water line at the property line. He proposed the extension of the line to the west and into the proposed site. The water line exists and a natural preserve easement across the rear of the Bellagio lots, which would preserve the trees. He noted the area that the trees would be removed for the installation of the water line.

Member Canup asked the reasoning for not directional boring underneath the trees to avoid disturbing the trees. He asked for this to be clarified before he made it part of the motion.

Mr. Deak stated the reason was that it would be very costly.

Member Canup stated that he contracts directional boring and it is not very expensive.

Mr. Galvin stated the plan before the Commission was developed so as to protect and preserve thirty-eight percent (38%) of the open space on the parcel. A number of concessions were made in the RUD Agreement that cost the developer a lot of money. He understood that on one hand the Commission enforces the regulations of the City. However, he felt in a review of history, the Commission would find that the proposed Site Plan and proposed RUD preserves and protects the proposed land. He stated that there is a give and take in the process. He noted the Commission requests the assurance that there would be lighting at the entryway and lighting of the sign with decorative pole lighting, which he agreed to provide. He assured the Commission of the sanitary sewer as spoken of by the City Engineer, which he agreed to handle. Mr. Galvin believed the Waiver was granted by the City Council by virtue of the approval already granted. He noted that Mr. Paciocco agreed to review and perhaps change the relationship of the break to come closer to the preference(s) mentioned by Mr. Arroyo and some of the commissioners. In relation to the stub street, he believed that it was in a location that it was most likely to be used. Although, in looking at the likely development around it, the Commission would find that it was not highly likely. In regard to the active and passive recreation, he stated that the one acre was merely a figure given to him when he asked the planner for the amount of land. He stated that it was likely that the figure could have been inaccurate. He assured the Commission that the area would be an active recreation area. There would not be larger recreation areas due to the wooded and wetland areas, which the City fought to keep. Therefore, he stated that the size is what it is. He added that the State Park across the street has a lot of the active recreation items. He agreed with Member Markham with the purpose of the RUD provision.

Acting Chairperson Canup interjected and notified Mr. Galvin that the Commission would call him forward if they had any further questions. He asked Ms. Lemke to clarify the tree condition of the area where he suggested directional boring for the water line.

Ms. Lemke clarified if he was referring to the quality.

Acting Chairperson Canup answered, correct.

Ms. Lemke indicated the quality is high in that area and it is a contiguation of the Bellagio site, which is part of a preservation easement.

Acting Chairperson Canup asked what percentage of the trees would be lost and the quality of that percentage with the placement of the water line.

Ms. Lemke clarified if he was speaking to the entire site.

Acting Chairperson Canup clarified that he was referring to the east/west portion of the line.

Ms. Lemke indicated that to determine an exact number she would need to look at the plan. However, without looking at the plan, she estimated approximately fifty (50) and the understory. She restated that the same quality of woodlands were throughout that area. The applicant is clearing a fifteen to twenty (15-20) foot area that is buffered on both sides. She agreed with Mr. Galvin in that they have save a large amount of woodlands for the site. However, she also agreed that directional boring is one way to preserve an additional area.

Acting Chairperson Canup asked Ms. McClain is she was familiar with directional boring.

Ms. Weber answered, yes.

Acting Chairperson Canup asked if she felt that there were any reasons that directional boring could not be done.

Ms. Weber stated that water mains are typically placed fairly shallow at 5½ to 6-feet down. Therefore, she noted her concern with the roots of the trees possibly growing down and causing a shift in the water main. Typically, the amount of area that might be needed to construct the water main is a "one on one influence". For example if the water main was placed 5½ feet down, then typically the trench would be 10-feet (5-feet on each side). The twenty (20) foot would be more of an easement for maintenance. She informed the Commission if a problem arises and the water main requires maintenance, then trees would be lost due to the digging.

Acting Chairperson Canup noted that he is familiar with the product Squeeze Bore for directional boring. He stated that it is fairly flexible and moves easily without breaking as concrete pipe would.

Member Kocan recalled a letter from Cambridge Homes dated in January 2, 2001, which was included in a previous packet. The letter was specific in stating that they would not be proposing any shared access points with Maybury Park Estates Subdivision. She asked if there was a letter on file or an indication from the developer that they would be sharing an access point.

Mr. Galvin stated that he did not believe there was a letter, but he indicated Mr. Paciocco presence at meeting.

Adriano Paciocco of Multi Building Company indicated that he and Mr. Guidobono prefer to not have any connection between the west line of his property and the petitioner’s east line. However, he understood that the City of Novi encourages the stub roads. Originally the stub road was at a different location. However, since Mr. Guidobono began working on a site, the two engineers have met and relocated the stub road to an area that is believed to be usable. He recalled that the fire location ran through a wetland on Mr. Guidobono’s side. He restated his preference to not have the connection. He stated that Mr. Guidobono’s preference was to not have the connection.

Member Kocan stated that it is on the record that the location of the stub road was compatible. She noted Section 2404.12, which indicates that after a RUD plan has been approved it shall not be developed except in accordance with the plan. She noted the section also states, "…or in accordance with the Planning Commission and City Council approved amendment thereto." Therefore, she stated that she would not believe or accept that the Commission could not do anything because the plan is in concrete. She indicated that her motion would reflect that she would like the development to comply with as many ordinances as possible. She described two of them as "very simple". Member Kocan stated that she would not be proposing the City Council Waiver with regard to the island exceeding 100-feet as there is no reason that it could not comply with Ordinance requirements. Member Kocan stated that she would not recommend a variance with regard to the 30" berm not being provided along the right-of-way where no woodlands occur. She indicated that the only waiver she would consider was the stub street 1300-foot access, which requires a City Council Waiver. She questioned if then with her requests, it would have to return to the City Council for approval.

Mr. Schultz agreed that the language Member Kocan read is in the Ordinance. He stated that in greater detail, it states that once the area included within the RUD Plan has been approved by City Council, no development will take place in such area, nor may any use thereof be made except in accordance with the Plan (referring to the RUD Plan) or in accordance with a Planning Commission and City Council approved amendment thereto (referring to an amendment to the RUD Plan). He stated that "Planning Commission" is in the verbiage because the Planning Commission recommends amendments to the RUD Plan. The City Council would ultimately make a determination of whether to amend the plan, to amend the island, require the stubs or other issues. He stated that as purely a matter of ordinance interpretation and interpretation of this agreement, he felt that "that plan" showing "that island" is what the Planning Commission has to work with. He advised that it is his job to inform the Commission if a condition attached to a motion might not be enforceable. As a matter of ordinance and agreement interpretation, he believed that the City Council has waived those issues. He referenced the City Council minutes, which were given to him by Ms. Brock. In March, the City Council passed a motion approving the RUD, basically saying to meet all ordinance requirements, consultant review letters and return with an agreement and a plan. In September it returned with an agreement and a plan, which was approved without the additional language. If the majority of the Commission was concerned about the two specific waivers, then assuming it is an approval he suggested the verbiage, "approved subject to waivers of those two issues by Council if it is determined after reading the entire record that they are required." He informed the Commission that unless he there is further information in the files, his conclusion would be that the plan governs and the two issues have been resolved. However, the Commission protects itself and yet places its interest with the addition of the language, "approved subject to the waivers if it is determined that it is required based upon the City Council’s decision."

Member Kocan recalled the determination of the issue of whether the commission should approve the Preliminary Site Plan prior to sending it forward to Council with the RUD or have City Council approve the RUD and return to Planning Commission for Preliminary Site Plan Approval. At that time, she recalled being told that the Preliminary Site Plan would return to the Commission and the Commission would finalize the Preliminary Site Plan that would become part of the record. Member Kocan objected to the fact that the rules were now changing.

Mr. Schultz stated that one of the functions of an RUD (which is similar to a PUD), is to allow the developer to do some "things" that maybe might not otherwise be required under the Ordinance. He stated what went before the Council was not in that sense a discretionary type of determination. He believed that the Commission had to assume that the Council was aware of the issues that were raised in Mr. Arroyo’s letter. Whether the Council chose to amend the plan based on those or not has to be taken into account as the Council’s action. He stated that they did not intend to misrepresent the process. Anything that has not been set in the discretionary plan would return to the Planning Commission to ensure the other Ordinance requirements are met. He stated that this is the basis of all the review letters have been – to ensure that to be true.

Acting Chairperson Canup felt that the matter was extensively discussed. He suggested creating a "laundry list" of the items that require attention, attempt to work them out or place them into a motion. He asked that the commissioners be detailed and brief when listing items.

Member Kocan indicated the quandary as to why the Commission should be approving a Site Plan when they do not have the authorization. She listed items of her concern. 1) For the traffic island at the east entrance to comply with Ordinance.

Member Ruyle listed his items of concern. 1) To have something specifically designated for the active park land, such as a tennis court or of similar nature.

Member Markham listed her items of concern. 1) Specifically that the Final Site Plan include specific permanent active recreation plans.

Member Paul listed her items of concern. 1) To have the actual signs on both islands illuminated. If the sign is located in the center portion or on the two adjacent areas to the islands that the sign be illuminated properly. If the sign is to be located on the side of the islands that the wording of Maybury Park Estates to be on each side of the sign. 2) Proper decorative lampposts be on each island. Preferably if the long one is on the east side then two or three lampposts.

Member Shroyer listed his items of concern. He suggested the term "facilities" (a structure) for the recreation activity area. 1) The assurance of proper buffering north of Lot 73 and Lot 72. 2) The replacement of trees in regard to the water main or the option of directional boring. 3) The requirement of the 30" berm along the right-of-way where no woodlands occur.

Member Nagy listed her concerns. 1) Preservation easement for the woodlands. 2) To specifically define the active recreational use.

Member Paul also added: 1) In regard to the active recreation area that the western portion have less landscaping to allow for a larger space.

Acting Chairperson Canup indicated that the Commission would address each item one at a time.

Mr. Evancoe stated the first item to be addressed was to for the traffic island at the east to comply with Ordinance.

Acting Chairperson Canup opened the item for discussion. Hearing none, he clarified that the commissioners agreed on the matter.

Commission agreed.

Mr. Evancoe stated the second item was the designation of the active park area. He added that typically this is would occur at Final. Therefore, he questioned if that was the Commission’s intention.

Acting Chairperson Canup answered, yes. He noted the Commission’s agreed interest in the active area.

Mr. Evancoe stated the third item was illumination signage and decorative lampposts in the islands.

Member Shroyer pointed out that the opposite side of the street, where there would normally be overhead lighting, is Northville.

Acting Chairperson Canup stated it was likely that that area would remain dark. He did not anticipate the placement of a light. Acting Chairperson Canup asked if the Commission agreed to have this item provided.

Commission agreed.

Mr. Evancoe stated the next item to utilize the term "facilities" when referring to the recreation area. He clarified that the commission’s intent is not at this time to determine what the facilities should be.

Acting Chairperson Canup answered, correct.

Member Markham indicated her preference was to have it on the plan. For example, to show tennis courts or basketball court layouts at Final.

Acting Chairperson Canup felt that this should be at the discretion of the developer. However, it should be something that is useable and should represent the intent.

Ms. Brock noted the next item, the proper buffering along Lot 72 and Lot 73 related to the water line.

Commission agreed.

Mr. Evancoe stated the next item suggesting directional boring for the water line.

Acting Chairperson Canup noted his desire to not have the trees removed.

Mr. Schultz indicated that the Commission could say to the extent that this provision could be required at the time of construction as part of the Final Site Plan and Engineering approval as what they would like to see. However, to make it a Site Plan requirement, an ordinance or regulatory standard would be needed to state that one bores "here".

Acting Chairperson Canup suggested that Mr. Schultz’ comments should "somehow" be included in the motion.

Ms. Brock stated the remaining items: To provide the 30" berm along the right-of-way where no woodlands occur; meeting the Design Construction Standards for the end island to meet 100-feet; Preservation Easement for the woodlands; and in regard to the active recreation area that the western portion have less landscaping to allow for a larger space.

Acting Chairperson Canup noted the Commission’s agreement of the items and indicated that they needed to be entered into a motion. He asked Member Kocan if she would prepare the motion.

Yes: Canup, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer

No: None

None

None

Mike Deshano spoke in regard to Sandstone. He was aware of the Commission’s request the input that has been on record, particularly the audience participation from the December 17, 2001 meeting. He stated that his participation was not until midnight. He asked that his comments be included in the package. He felt the settlement agreement included zoning changes and property usages. He was not sure the extent that this was addressed in the overall package. The focus appears to be on the park land, however, the agreement also included other areas that would require changes. Therefore, he requested that this consideration be taken in the Commission’s overall input. He indicated that he was not opposed to the transfer of the park land. He noted the emotion involved in the matter. He noted that his issue was the manner in which the City was conducting itself and the awkward placement of the Commission to be supporter and somewhat of a political group of the City Council’s recommendations. In October, he recalled discussion of the possibility of a vote. At that time, it was determined that it would take three months to do this process and it was thought to be economically unaffordable. He suggested that the Commission encourage the City Manager to survey the registered voters through a non binding mailing of a ballot with the such proposals as the City sees fit, including input from the Friends of Novi. He felt that if it did not go through a formal mailing or some type of ballet, he believed that it would linger on with strong emotions. He believed that the expressed concerns of cost and liability associated with the transfer were valid. However, he felt the survey would provide the needed information for the decision to be made in January and avoid the repetitiveness of the comments.

Acting Chairperson Canup indicated that the matter would be discussed at the first meeting in January.

Moved by Canup, seconded by Kocan, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 11:01 p.m.

Yes: Canup, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer

No: None

________________________________

Donna Howe - Planning Assistant

Transcribed by: Christine Otsuji

January 15, 2002

Date Approved: February 20, 2002