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

PRESENT: Members Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague.

ABSENT/EXCUSED: None

ALSO PRESENT: Planning Director David Evancoe, City Attorney Gerald Fisher, Staff Planner Beth Brock, Planner Barbara McBeth, City Engineer Nancy McClain, Landscape Architect Lauren McGuire, Planning/Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Senior Environmental Specialist Aimee Kay

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

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Avdoulos, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the agenda as submitted.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

None

None

None

None

None

Public Hearing on the request of Bob Porteous of The Novi Investment Company for a recommendation to City Council for a Residential Unit Development (RUD). The subject property is located in Section 32, on the north side of Eight Mile Road and east of

Garfield Road. The developer is proposing a 61 unit single-family development. The subject property is 77.37 acres.

Chairperson Nagy indicated that the Staff advised the Commission to send an approval or denial to the City Council of RUD Concept Plan; however, the Ordinance does not require a Concept Plan. Therefore, she asked the Mr. Evancoe for clarification on the matter.

Gerald Fisher, City Attorney interjected. Section 2404(B)(7)(6) and (7) - Consideration of Application, of the RUD Ordinance calls out specific perimeters for an application under the RUD section with reference to a preliminary submittal. Since the requirements of the Preliminary Submittal are not precisely the same as a Preliminary Site Plan, a Final Site Plan or Final Plat would be necessary to finalize the RUD. He interpreted the term Concept Plan as referring to the Preliminary Submittal as contemplated in Subsection 7.

Chairperson Nagy clarified that the purpose of referencing the Concept Plan is for the Applicant to submit a bonafide plan, which would depict a traditional subdivision as opposed to concept plan. The Commission will have the ability to compare the bonafide plan to the concept plan, which would demonstrate the superiority of the Concept Plan over the regular subdivision plan. She assumed the Applicant would provide the Commission a comparison of the traditional and RUD plan and demonstrate that the RUD would benefit the City of Novi.

Mr. Fisher deemed it appropriate for the Applicant to respond to her comments. He noted that the reports refer to a comparison.

Member Markham asked if the Commission’s recommendation to Council would be based on drawings that are specific and not broad in concept. She recalled a previous situation where a plan returned to the Commission for Final and the Commission was forced to accept the plan as it was because City Council had already approve the RUD.

Mr. Fisher advised that the details must be specific enough to allow the Commission to answer all of the requirements included in Subsection 7B 1 through 13. He noted that he is cognizant of the project she referenced. The preliminary submittal was extremely detailed although it is not contemplated in the Ordinance, however they were trying to move the project forward.

Chairperson Nagy explained that the Commission did not desire to be placed in that type of situation again.

Barbara McBeth, Planner introduced the request of Bob Porteous of the Novi Investment Company for a recommendation to City Council of the Residential Unit Development (RUD) Concept Plan. The subject property is currently undeveloped land. The properties to the west are vacant of buildings and some are developed with single-family homes fronting on Eight Mile and Garfield Road. To the north is a single-family home, which mostly front on Garfield Road. To the east is land, which was recently approved for the Maybury Park Estates RUD residential development. Further away to the northeast is the Bellagio development, currently under construction. To the south, in the Northville Township are single-family homes off of Eight Mile and Westview Road. The subject property is zoned R-A, Residential Acreage, as are the surrounding properties. The Master Plan for Land Use recommends residential. To the southwest, the property is Master Planned for public uses and is owned by the Northville School District. To the north, the property is Master Planned for public uses. The submitted concept plan shows the proposed development of a detached Single-Family Residential project containing 61 homes. The plan is proposed to be reviewed under the RUD Option (Residential Unit Development) of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires review of a Concept Plan by the Planning Commission with a recommendation to the City Council. The submitted concept plan shows proposed roadway system through the development connecting Eight Mile Road and Garfield Road with various cul-de-sacs off of the main road system. Thirty-one percent (31%) of the property is proposed to be maintained as open space and includes the existing large wooded area at the northeast part of the site and several wetland areas. All of the homes are proposed to be detached, non-clustered homes on lots varying in size from approximately ½ to 1-acre lots sizes. The RUD option is designed to encourage a variety of lot sizes. Out of the sixty-one (61) lots shown, six (6) lots or ten percent (10%) of the homes are proposed to meet the R-A standards of 1-acre lot sizes, and the remaining fifty-five (55) lots are proposed to meet the ½- acre size. The Planning review included the Zoning Ordinance requirement that the site contain a minimum of eighty (80) acres in order to qualify for the RUD option. This site contains 76.833-acres excluding the right of way areas. The Ordinance explains that City Council may vary the minimum acres requirement by up to 5% (or a minimum of 76 acres) provided that the result of the 80-acres would result in a peculiar or exceptional undue hardship, provided that such relief may be granted without impairing the intent and purpose of the RUD Ordinance. The Planning review also indicated the ordinance requirements that streets shall be extended to the site’s boundaries at intervals along the property line not to exceed 1300 feet. Additionally, the arrangement of streets shall make provision for continuation of existing streets in adjoining developments. The submitted plan does not provide the required stub street connection around the perimeter property lines nor does it provide the stub street connection to the Maybury Park Estates RUD development directly to the east. City Council waivers will be needed for these deficiencies, or the plans must be modified. She advised that the Commission consider the appropriateness of the site for the proposed use, effects of the proposed use upon adjacent properties and the community, demonstrable need for the proposed use, care taken to maintain the naturalness of the site and to blend the use within the site and its surroundings and existence of clear, explicit, substantial and ascertainable benefits to the City from the RUD. Additionally, the Commission should consider major issue such as the determinations and evaluations of the factors listed in the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Department recommends Commission to use these evaluation issues in the motion when recommending approval or denial of the Concept Plan to City Council. A Woodland and Wetland permit are required at the time of Preliminary Site Plan Review. A City Council Waiver may be needed for location of the driveway on Eight Mile Road. A City Council Waiver is required for the access control gates located at the Garfield Road and Eight Mile entrances.

Joe Galvin, representing the Novi Investment Company, designated the high quality woodland on the site, which continues to the north. He asked the Commission to send a positive recommendation to the City Council for the RUD. An approval would allow the preservation of the Woodland and the Core Reserve Habitat area. He showed the Commission a hypothetical set-up of the site developed as a conventional R-A subdivision and with the RUD Option. The size is approximately 77-acres without the right-of-way and 80-acres is required, however a City Council Waiver can be obtained to waive 5% on the size of the parcel, thereby making it 76%. He commented on the failure to provide a connection to the Maybury site or a connection every 1300-feet on the perimeter. He noted almost the entire western border, other than the portion abutting Garfield, goes into the School District property. The School District does not wish to have cuts made into its property as indicated in a letter submitted to the Planning Department. To the north are scattered Single-Family developments and a large area for public use, these make the cuts inappropriate. The Staff strongly recommended the cut into Maybury development, however Tuscany Reserve is intended to be an entirely self-contained development. He reminded the Commission of disputes regarding the extent that the Council does not want to have stub street connections. The City Council approved the Singh Development with no stub streets connections. He restated the desire to develop the site self-contained, however should the Commission feel the connection is in the best interest of the City then he asked that they recommend a connection limited to the residents of Tuscany Reserve and Maybury. He indicated that there is no longer a need for a Council Waiver for the length of the boulevard entrance. He agreed to change the dimension to 100-feet at the Eight Mile entry point. He agreed to work with the Consultants/Staff to create an entry design to eliminate the need for the Planning Commission Waiver for opposite-side driveway spacing requirements on Eight Mile.

Chairperson Nagy informed the Applicant that he had exceeded the presentation time limit. She asked him to conclude his presentation with final comments.

Mr. Galvin asked for a favorable recommendation to the City Council. He stressed that the RUD Option is appropriate for the site and would benefit the City in its preservation of the natural features.

Chairperson Nagy announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the matter to the Public.

Cindy Gronaghan 21668 Garfield Road stated, "This gentleman stated this is the perfect use for the property, but I like it the way it is. The cornfield outside my kitchen window, however progress is coming. I am here tonight as a member of Garfield Road. I see there are other residents here. I am also speaking on behalf of Tim and Nancy Mitts and we have some concerns about this project. I am not sure what stage you are in but, I figured if I got in here early, then everyone would make a note of it and keep an eye out. My first concern is that there is a 106-acre wetland to the west of this project. Where you see the flag shaped piece of property, it abuts up to that plot. That is the Boom’s property and the 106-acres touches there."

Chairperson Nagy interjected and asked for an overhead map for Ms. Gronaghan to reference.

Ms. Gronaghan continued, "My house is here. There are actually three houses in this area, which are not noted on the map. It is not a desolate piece of property. Back here is where the wetlands project starts. 106-acres of dedicated wetlands. When you are considering water runoff and those areas, please consider which way everything is going to go. I am in favor of what the previous speaker spoke about in terms of saving trees. This is a heavy area of trees and wildlife. If you recall, the Maybury Estates development went through a lot of effort to save the wetlands and the protected areas in there. I hope that this site does the same. My other concern is the entrance on Garfield Road. Why it is there I am not sure. I have not heard why. I would like to remind the Commission that Garfield Road is one mile. It is not Beck Road. It is not compared anything like Beck Road. There are no sidewalks. It will not be widened like Beck and can not carry traffic. It is a 25mph speed limit. Three-quarters of that road was paved by the State of Michigan. The City does not have any improvements for that road. Any type of construction or any type of excessive traffic could damage that road and then we are faced with more problems. When we are looking at entering or exiting on Garfield Road this is an issue that you need to look at. On the opposite side of that there is another cornfield that would become another subdivision in the future. Can this road handle the outpouring of traffic? You are talking about a ¼ of a mile from the proposed site to Garfield Road. Now we have traffic emptying off of Garfield onto Eight Mile Road at 7:30 in the morning and there is no traffic light. Those are my issues as well as the water table. I have been out there for 23-years. We have had water table problems from area subdivisions that went to dewater and set their wells and our water drops. I am worried about the runoff. I really want these things looked at. If there could be less development on this piece of property that could better serve this part of the community then by all means. I am not against this development, I just have those concerns. Thank you for your time."

Richard Genrich represented Maybury Park Estates stated, "I support the Developer and their efforts to keep the cul-de-sac as opposed to a stub street connecting to our development. Bellagio has one entrance with no stub connections to Maybury Estates. We feel that both developments would be fine as they are and would prosper in that manner."

Andrew Mutch, 24541 Hampton Court stated, "In this case the Commission is working with a Developer who I have the highest respect for. I think Mr. Guidibono has shown time and again with his projects that he is a developer that looks at issues that frankly a lot of other developers do not give a second thought to. When we have talked about neighborhood parks, he pointed out the need for that vehicle in our ordinance to allow for neighborhood parks. He has gone ahead and provided them although our ordinance did not provide a vehicle to do that. As well, in other communities, he has provided many sidewalks even when those weren’t required. Mr. Galvin I am sure made some eloquent arguments of why this project should be approved. In one point, I was in agreement that the RUD is the appropriate vehicle for this property. Clearly it has some very important environmental features. What we don’t want is another 1-acre lot subdivision that chews up as much ground as possible while providing no open space. I am up here speaking tonight because of a hard learned lesson on the Planning Commission with the Maybury Park Estates. I am sure that Commissioner Kocan will be able to speak to this issue. But one of the things that we learned with the RUD process is that once the concept plan is approved, coming back down the road and having changes worked into that plan are suddenly very difficult and problematic. In essence, if you do not get things done up front and you do not send a packet plan along that looks the way you want it to look, then it is very unlikely that you will be able to make changes even if you are told otherwise. We learned that with Maybury Park Estates. Again I am in approval of the RUD concept, I think it is the best approach for this property. Make sure that it meets what you want to see when this project is finally approved. If you do not do it now, you probably will not be able to do it later. Just a couple of other issues related to the layout and development of the site. I think the most important issue is to keep the proximity of the school site to this property in mind in your deliberation in terms of looking at the connections. Not only the connections for this development but the surrounding developments as well. The plan for this is to be a middle school at some point. This means a number of the children in the area will probably be walking to school. Not only for school itself, but utilizing athletic facilities on the site and coming back to school for after school activities. We do not want to have a situation that we see far too often in Novi, where parents have to drive their children to a school that is located within a half mile of home because there is no safe or easy way to get there. The same that the kids could go down Eight Mile and take a bike path or a sidewalk that could be installed. Also, keep in mind the public safety benefits. I understand why the different developers have said that they did not want the connection to their subdivision. They may have issues of circulation or marketing issues that they speak to, but the first and foremost concern of the Commission is the public health, safety and welfare and think about future residents in that area and if there was ever an emergency and a need for police fire or ambulance vehicles. What would happen if access was denied and help was delayed. It just takes a couple of minutes to make a difference between life and death for someone having a heart attack. Life and death issues are going to be decided on the desires for marketing. That is all that I have. Keep in mind the concept plan and the RUD. I think it is a pretty good plan with some tweaks. I would like to see something that does respect the environment move forward. Thank you."

Member Kocan announced she received a Petition with 13 signatures attached to a City of Novi response form which states, "It has come to the attention of the Garfield Road residents that the south end of Garfield Road is currently slated for development. It behooves us at this time to see that our neighborhood maintains its personality and appeal. Therefore, we the undersigned residents of Garfield Road ask that the plans for development approval include the following. 1) Homes and lots located on Garfield Road be fronted and accessed from Garfield Road. This will keep the neighborhood personality on Garfield Road. 2) The 50-foot lot width minimum is maintained throughout any new lots located or fronted on Garfield Road."

Chairperson Nagy asked if there were any further audience participants to speak to the matter. Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing and turned the matter over to the Commission for discussion.

Member Markham agreed with Mr. Mutch’s comments in that an open space or another preservation option would be the best option for the property. She supported any preservation of large parcels of the natural land. She stated the stub street connection is essential for safety access and the assumption that the development is not pedestrian friendly. School children should be given easy access though the development instead of having to walk on Eight Mile Road or be driven. Northville require students to reside one-mile or more from the school for bus service. Therefore, students in the proposed development and Maybury Park Estates would walk, bike ride or be driven to school. Factoring together Eight Mile Road’s 50-mph speed limit and the mass vehicles turning out of the subdivisions to drive 150-feet to turn into the school is "an accident waiting to happen". There is one access point at the southern end of the development, a walking path, from the subdivision to the school property. Although, it will service 15 to 20 people, it will not allow other children from there or the surrounding neighborhoods to walk or ride their bikes to school. If the children are not able to get to where they need to go, then she questioned the reasoning for installing sidewalks. She understood the desire for an upscale neighborhood; however, the connecting road is a necessity along with the provision of more than one pathway into the school. She asked if the Developer will comply with the recommendations from JCK & Associates with regard modifications to the wetland.

Mark Guidibono of The Novi Investment Company answered, yes.

Member Markham stated according to the RUD requirements, there should be a variety of lot sizes. She did not agree that six houses of one design and fifty-five of another met the intent of the variety requirement. Further, she stated Bocci Ball is not considered active recreation.

Member Avdoulos agreed with both Member Markham and Mr. Mutch. The RUD requirement is to help preserve the rural community character. The intent of the ordinance is to maintain a character of a more spatial setting, a more rural tone. The presented concept is not in the direction of the spirit of the ordinance. He agreed stub road connection is needed to maintain a neighborhood character. Gated communities will create land that is only accessible for the residents in that piece of property. He questioned how this decision would benefit the City as whole. Instead it only benefits those residing in that development. It is difficult to visualize the appearance of the neighborhood in a conceptual stage. He asked the anticipated price range of the homes.

Mr. Guidibono stated the price range begins at $700,000.

Member Avdoulos asked for the approximate square footage.

Mr. Guidibono stated the range is 4000, 6000 and 7000 square feet.

Member Avdoulos asked the character of the homes. He noted that each home in the Fox Hollow development has a different character.

Mr. Guidibono stated the homes are designed per the individual. He gave the example of the Bellagio development. An in-house architect will work with the customers to design their dream home. He indicated Fox Hollow has a variety of different builders and thereby creating the different styles, however he will be the only builder for the Tuscany Reserve Development.

Member Avdoulos supported the idea of preserving woodlands and wetlands, however the intent of the spirit of the ordinance is to create a development that is more open. The intent is not to cram as many parcels in a development as possible. He recalled the Applicant’s reference that the rural character of the area is being maintained; however he disagreed. The front entry boulevard is very formal, the homes are up to the lots without any open space, and the site itself ignores its neighboring development (and the school and children safety issue) by not connecting the stub road. The site is presented as a gated community, which is exclusive and exclusionary. The idea of community begins to deteriorate with gated developments. In order to accomplish some of the development, he requested characteristics of a rural setting containing the elements beyond the typical large-lot house. A more inventive and challenging effort should be made. He suggested a continuation of the characteristics contained in Maybury State Park across the street, such as rolling hills, trees and meadow grasses. He was concerned with the image that would be created in the community with having $700,000 plus homes adjacent to the schools. In regard to marketing interest, the consumer demand is often a "perceived demand" because people will make a choice within the choices they are offered. The proposed site offers an opportunity to create something unique.

Member Paul agreed with the previous speakers. She stated Bocci Ball is not active recreation. She read Section 2404. 7A(4) of the Zoning Ordinance, "The care taken to maintain the naturalness of the site and blend the use within the site and its surroundings". The proposed does not meet this requirement. Additionally, a gated community does not benefit the whole City. She stated the stub street should be connected to Maybury Park Estates. She understood the marketing issues, however the flow should continue to allow everyone to benefit from the parklands. Sidewalks should lead to the schools. The health, safety and welfare of the community should be considered in regard to fire safety and the children walking to school. She was pleased with the proposed 100-foot island. She anticipated the possibility of lighting issues with the school and the western portion of the site.

Mr. Galvin anticipated that trees would be planted along to insulate the western border to the extent possible. There are potentially two connections for pedestrian traffic, one to the north and one to the south. He requested a favorable recommendation to the City Council with the consensus of the members of the Planning Commission regarding these issues. He was not interested in disputing the issue with the Commission.

Chairperson Nagy interjected and reminded Mr. Galvin that the matter is at the Commission’s table and is not open for discussion.

Member Paul requested a response from Mr. Guidibono.

Mr. Guidibono stated the School Board has no plans for a High School, however an elementary school is possible. An elementary school utilized less land and would create a larger buffer. He believed that elementary schools typically do not put in lights for their sporting events, however he was not absolutely certain.

Member Paul asked how the sewage and water would be handled.

Ms. McClain stated a permit was received for Section 32 sewer. The sewer will connect to Maybury and then to Tuscany Reserve. Currently, the timing issues are being discussed with both developers. There is a problem with water pressure at this corner of the City. Currently, the site will have wells. There might be a requirement for hydrants Fire Department use, however they will not service City Water for housing due to the water pressure issues. The same situation exists at Maybury Estates and it is being handled in the same manner for public safety.

Member Paul asked if the residents only needed a hookup and a turn of a valve to obtain City Water since the plumbing and water hookups will exist.

Ms. McClain stated it could not be determined at this point because it would depend upon the City’s upcoming decisions. Currently the Water Master Plan is being updated, the City Council is in the process of making some and items that were recommended in the CIP Plan will occur in the next couple of years. Taps off of the line are one possibility. She anticipated that it would be plumbed far enough to keep it off of the roadway, however it would not be plumbed to the house.

Member Paul stated there was a moratorium on the City Water when she moved into her home. She recalled the developer Mr. Lewiston hooking up to the City Water, however the valve was shut off. As a result, she had to pay $1500- $1800 to have the City install a meter and turn the valve. She did not want this same burden to be passed to the citizens of the City.

Ms. McClain stated the cost is the residents’ responsibility. Typically, resident pays for the water connection as part of their purchase of the lot in a subdivision without a water pressure problem. In this case, it has not been determined where the connections will be located or how far it will be plumbed to the house. The City of Novi does not require a water hookup for every house.

Member Paul requested Ms. McClain to answer "yes" or "no" as to whether or not it could be stated that the plumbing could be there.

Ms. McClain restated it is currently in the process and timing as to when this type of service can be provide can not determined presently.

Mr. Fisher interjected. The issue of the manner in which sewer service will be brought to Section 32 (including the subject area) is currently the subject of further discussions with Maybury Park Estates. If the Commission chooses to send a favorable recommendation forward, then he advised a ninth motion criteria to state that there will be a resolution with regard to the provision of sanitary sewer. He was confident with the applicant’s interest to cooperate in this area, however he found the additional verbiage appropriate. Utility service is one of the issues included in B1-13.

Chairperson Nagy interjected. She asked Mr. Fisher to clarify his comments.

Mr. Fisher stated the matter of providing sanitary sewer should be resolved.

Chairperson Nagy stated the City Council does not have a proposal for the sanitary sewer for this area.

Mr. Fisher stated the approved to date Maybury RUD Agreement proposes the contemplation of a special assessment to create a District for the area to finance the extension of sanitary sewer along Beck Road and through Maybury in a westerly direction. It would generally probably include and serve the Tuscany property.

Chairperson Nagy understood that the Administration proposed to take $500 from the Storm water Management fund and "front it" to the developer, however Council did not make a resolution on the matter.

Mr. Fisher stated the motion should include criteria indicating that there needs to be solution/resolution on this issue with the combined cooperative effort among all of all the property owners.

Chairperson Nagy stated this is part of the RUD Ordinance.

Mr. Fisher agreed, however it should be part of the motion because there is no apparent solution in any "fixed" manner at the present time. Therefore, it needs to be part of the ultimate process.

Member Paul was interested in a specific lighting plan for the entrance because the property abuts Northville. Specific active parkland should be part of the plan. She asked how the water flow would impact the wetland area.

Senior Environmental Specialist Aimee Kay asked which wetland area she was referring to.

Member Paul designated Lots 15, 16, 17 and 22 and Wetland H-I.

Ms. Kay asked her to rephrase her question.

Member Paul stated the wetland is fairly large. A portion of the wetland is proposed to be filled. It appears that the water flow is from I to H. She asked what would happen to the water index with the filling of the area.

Ms. Kay stated the applicant might want to comment. She stated no water table has been established. She referred to the review letter dated July 19, 2002, which described Wetland H and Wetland I as one connected wetland that flows from that portion Wetland H to Wetland I in a northeasterly direction. The wetland is a wet meadow and contains a variety of wetland dependant species. The description was intended to describe general topographical conditions. It was not intended to insinuate that the flow is year round. She deferred to the applicant to comment on the questions related to the water table and sub pumps. The wetland is described as essential to the preservation of natural resources and the fill is being allowed, which is a typical variance from the Wetland Ordinance. Although there remain several unanswered questions, she supported the variance and noted the project is in the preliminary conceptual levels.

Member Paul stated the documentation indicates that the soils were saturated throughout the majority of the wetland, therefore, she asked if there would be soil borings. She asked if there would be testing to determine the type of fill needed. Additionally, she asked how would it impact the area.

Ms. Kay assessed that there was not permanent year-round standing water. A general description of the current conditions and an intermittent picture of the time of inspection were provided to the Commission. She agreed that there was a lot of work that needed to be done in terms of protecting the residents and understanding the current conditions.

Member Paul stated there is a problem with reviewing the matter without the soil borings and the placement of a road with the fact that five lots will be impacted by a wetland proposed to be filled. She asked how it could be an approved concept.

Mr. Fisher stated the extent of the Commission’s concern that wetland issues might impact the ultimate lot configuration should be included in the recommendation to City Council. The type of information Member Paul is requesting at this point is related to engineering, which is beyond the preliminary analysis stage. He agreed that it is conceivable that once the analysis is completed, it might impact the configuration.

Member Paul asked the applicant if he was amenable to changes to an approved concept after the wetlands soil boring testing.

Bob Leighton answered, yes. He stated the site is primarily clay with perched water on top. It is not muck. The wetlands are of a lower quality. The quality is typically measured by diversity. Wetlands C, H and I are monoculture reed canary grass, which is an invader species. Placing water in the wetland to improve the diversity is the best option, which JCK has recommended in some of their enhancement ideas. The wetland will be upgraded.

Chairperson Nagy stated the letter from the school district was not included in the commissioners’ packet. She asked if the Planning Department was purview to such a letter.

Mr. Evancoe stated he is not aware of this letter.

Chairperson Nagy asked the Applicant if there were any further documents the Commission should have with the consideration of his request.

Mr. Galvin stated the letter from the School District, opposing the street connections to its property was already submitted to the City; however, he would supply the letter again.

Member Ruyle asked if the sewers would be connected to Bellagio.

Ms. McClain answered, no.

Member Ruyle stated Maybury is connected to Bellagio.

Ms. McClain stated Maybury is connecting water to Bellagio underneath the trees. Sewer will be connected to Maybury, however Tuscany’s sewer will not be connected to Bellagio.

Member Ruyle stated Twelve Mile Road is being repaved and redone at the expense of the developer. He asked if the Commission could require this Developer to do the same with Garfield Road.

Mr. Fisher answered if the Developer enters into a voluntary agreement with the City then it could be done. Unless the Commission could demonstrate that the Developer is creating a burden on Garfield requiring the paving and that it would be almost a "nuisance" condition if it were not paved, then it could not be a mandatory requirement. It would be an offsite improvement, which is referred to by the Court as an exaction. Additionally, there needs to be significant proofs made by a study.

Member Ruyle requested the developer to give the possibility consideration since he anticipated the use of Garfield Road for construction access. He asked Mr. Galvin if represented Maybury Park Estates.

Mr. Galvin stated he represented Maybury Park Estates for the purpose of the Final Approval, however, he no longer represents Maybury.

Member Ruyle stated there was an argument with regard to stub roads with the Maybury Park Estates.

Mr. Galvin recalled his comments.

Member Ruyle stated it appeared the Commission approved the stub road. Therefore, he would not support anything without the stub road being connected nor would he support anything without at least a stub road or access more than a northerly access to the school property.

Mr. Galvin requested permission to respond to Member Ruyle’s comments.

Chairperson Nagy answered, no. She stated it is not a dialog and he could respond if the Commission addresses him with a question.

Member Papp agreed with the commissioners’ comments. He asked how a gated community is accessed in the event of an emergency. He gave the example of Bellagio where the gates are closed at 6pm.

Ms. McClain stated it could be set up according to the Fire Department requirements with an approval from the Council. One option is the Fire Department and all the emergency vehicles would have a key to the box with the switch for operating the gates. Secondly, the gates could have a sensor that opens at the sound of a siren. It would also depend upon whether or not the gates will be manned. Additionally, there are fire safety code requirements that need to be met.

Member Papp clarified that the Fire and Police Department would have access.

Ms. McClain answered, yes.

Member Papp stated there is a volunteer fire department after certain hours, thereby creating a situation with several cars meeting at the scene of the fire.

Ms. McClain stated there is an emergency access to Bellagio that is not gated, however it is not readily accessible.

Member Papp stated that access is a chained gate. He agreed with the commissioners’ comments regarding the school property. He stated the proposed trees are 2½-inches, which would grow over the years and cover the school. He stated it would be a hard sell to pay $700,000 for a house that backs up against an elementary school with children playing during the day.

Member Sprague stated Wetland H flows into Wetland I. He asked what would happen to Wetland I with the filling of Wetland H.

Mr. Leighton stated the storm water management issues are not determined at the concept stage. Therefore, he noted the several alternatives. One, the water could be filtered and return to the wetland. Alternatively, the water could be stored and routed elsewhere to limit that amount of water going into the wetland. Typically, the water flowing into the wetland under its current conditions is assessed and after the development is completed, the same amount of water could flow into the wetland from a detention system. He stated the current water flow is inadequate.

Member Sprague asked if the Applicant is committed to upgrade Wetland I and Wetland C.

Mr. Leighton answered, yes. He assumed a percentage of the stormwater would flow from the site into the wetlands, which would be filtered. Additionally, the area would be planted.

Member Sprague asked if the traffic comments could be adequately addressed or if a larger problem would be created on both of the streets.

Ms. McClain stated the Traffic Consultant has estimated approximately 660-trips per day. She noted a vehicle traveling to work and back represents two (2) trips. She calculated approximately 11 trips per household per day. Typically vehicles would exit to Eight Mile as opposed to Garfield, because Garfield is not a connector road. Those residing at the north end might travel straight down Garfield. Therefore, less than half of the traffic would travel to Garfield. She estimate 150-trips per day, leaving approximately 410-trips to Eight Mile Road. She noted the small street across the street with a dozen houses with 150-trips per day, which is not sufficient to warrant a traffic signal. The site distances in the area, the speeds and the amount of traffic would determine the requirement of left turn lanes, right turn lane or right turn taper. She recommended aligning the southern entrances. She stated there is a two-foot offset that probably would not be a problem for left hand turns. There will be few people crossing from one side of Eight Mile to the other. She did not anticipate an interlock situation. Overall, the traffic is not a major problem, however, some requirements need to be addressed. The Applicant has agreed to the length of the boulevard entrance. The Planning Commission wavier for opposite-side driveway spacing would come at the time of Preliminary Site Plan Approval.

Member Sprague asked the anticipated location of the construction traffic.

Ms. McClain required construction traffic to come and go off of Eight Mile because of its major road status. It is not desired on Garfield Road as it is not an arterial or thoroughfare.

Member Sprague stated his concern with the development maintaining a rural nature. He did not support the gated aspects particularly along the western access onto Garfield Road, where a rural feel currently exists. He recommended a stub road access and at least a minimum of access to the school particularly to formalize the path access alluded to on the map.

Member Shroyer stated Castello Drive cannot be a cul-de-sac. He asked if the Planning Department is aware of any site plans for the school property.

Mr. Evancoe answered, no. He stated the Department has not seen any site plans for the school.

Member Shroyer stated the school owns the property and there is an assumption that the school will build on that property as opposed to selling it. Once something is built, it is built. Alternatively, the school could sell the property to a developer and then there would be a situation with a subdivision that has no stubs to that adjacent property. He stated the Commission would regret not planning ahead. He stated the developer indicated that there is a possible roadway connection through Barola Park. There is not a path connected to the property, which would be simple to do. He suggested extending Tuscany Boulevard due west and stubbing into that property. He noted the bike path located to the south. He stated if the property is developed in the future for anything other than a school that does not need a drive, then there will be a problem. Therefore, he suggested shortening Lot 42 and shifting the lots forward to create a dedicated area located directly across from Tuscany Boulevard. It would be appropriate to reserve this area for future roadway connection. He asked the City Attorney if it is later determined that the connection is needed, who would be responsible for the cost. He asked if a written statement from the Developer is necessary.

Mr. Fisher stated it would typically be addressed in the RUD Contract, which is contemplated to be part of the development.

Member Shroyer stated the site could be build out at 100% and the need determined after. It would not be fair to place the cost of the stub street on the development to the south. Instead it should be required up front. There should be written language to cover this situation.

Mr. Fisher agreed.

Member Shroyer assumed the 4000 square foot homes would abut the school property. Consequently there will be students cutting through this area. He recommended that a connector be placed at the northeast corner at the end of Lot 42 or at the Borola Drive to indicate a path into the school. With respect to the Garfield Road residents, he asked if the Developer is amenable to have all construction road traffic enter and exit on Eight Mile Road.

Mr. Galvin answered, yes.

Member Shroyer stated a basketball court is being considered for the southeast portion of the site, however he found it more appropriate to locate a full basketball court in the center of the "football-shaped" area. He suggested curbing the area to flood in winter months for ice-skating or ice hockey. He stated lawn bowling and Bocci ball are not considered active recreation. A tennis court is also active recreation. The extension of Tuscany Boulevard is between lot 48 and Lot 49. He believed the proposed just barely met the intent of the RUD. Therefore, he was in favor of the concept with the recommendations made by the Commission.

Member Kocan recalled Maybury Park Estates submitting an actual RUD Agreement with their packet, however one was not included with the Tuscany submission. Therefore, she asked if it would be prepared prior to the matter going to the City Council.

Mr. Fisher stated the agreement is prepared after the City Council makes its approval.

Member Kocan stated there was a proposed RUD Agreement that was approved by the City Council. She stated this might be what "short-circuited" the Commission.

Mr. Fisher stated that is possible.

Member Kocan stated the plan before the Commission this evening will return to the Commission again for Preliminary Site Plan Approval.

Mr. Fisher disagreed. He stated the plan would return to the Commission for Final Site Plan Approval. He stated there is nothing in the ordinance that contemplates a Preliminary Site Plan Approval. The Commission will review the preliminary submittal plan and the Final Site Plan.

Chairperson Nagy interjected. She referenced page 3273 of the Ordinance, which states, "after review of the Planning Commission’s recommendation and other information relative to the RUD Application, the City Council may move to grant the application, which will serve as a preliminary approval of the RUD Application. When such an approval is given the City Council so instruct the applicant to have prepared for review, an approval by the City’s Legal Counsel, a contact setting forth the conditions upon which such approval is based. The contract after approval by resolution of the City Council shall be executed by the City and the Applicant and recorded in the office of Register of Deed… The final approval of the plan shall be effective upon recording." She did not want the Commission in the same predicament as it was with Maybury Park Estates. She stated this is why she previously requested a distinction be made between a conceptual plan and a preliminary site plan even though the ordinance does not refer to it the plan as a conceptual plan. The ordinance refers to the plan as a preliminary submittal. She requested Mr. Fisher to instruct the Commission exactly as to what they are approving or not approving with regard to the proposed plan.

Mr. Fisher stated according to his interpretation of the Ordinance, he did not find the same procedure that is normally undertaken by the Commission for a Preliminary Site Plan and Final Site Plan. There is a preliminary submittal with a plan. The Plan is somewhat analogous to, but is not a preliminary site plan. It is a preliminary submittal. If the plan is approved by the City Council, then a contract is made that would include the plan, which would come to the Planning Commission for consideration of a Final Site Plan or a Final Plat for a recommendation to the City Council. The Commission should specify the requirements and recommendations as part of the motion. The motion should be clear as to whether the Commission is making a requirement as part of the recommendation or making a recommendation or suggestion for consideration of the developer.

Chairperson Nagy asked the Commission if they understood Mr. Fisher’s comments.

Member Kocan stated consideration should be given to whether or not the RUD benefits outweigh the conventional development. She stated it does not appear a lot of property is being saved, however the core reserve area is an important piece of property for the City of Novi. She asked if a developer would be permitted to wipe out all of the woodlands and wetlands with a conventional plan. The maximum allowed lots is 61, which is what the developer has requested. She asked if the Commission has any "say" with this number for the purpose of saving additional core reserve area.

Mr. Fisher stated in response to her questions as to whether a property owner is permitted to wipe out regulated woodlands and wetlands that are required to be preserved; he stated regulated resources require a permit. The permit is discretionary and reviewed on the basis of the requirements of the respective regulations applicable to the wetlands and the woodlands. In short, he stated there is no absolute right to come in and wipe out the wetlands and woodlands. A permit is required.

Member Kocan stated a permit is required from the DEQ and the City of Novi. The DEQ could grant a permit, however the developer is also required to obtain a permit from the City of Novi.

Mr. Fisher agreed.

Member Kocan asked if what is being preserved in the development substantiates reducing the lot sizes from R-A to mostly R-1.

Ms. McGuire believed that it does. Approximately 59% of the woodlands will be preserved in the critical reserve area at the northeast corner of the site. She requested the Commission consider lots 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 19 for a lot-by-lot basis as opposed to clearing the entire lots at this time. This was done to a degree with the Bellagio development. Bellagio only cleared what was needed for the roads and then based on the architectural configuration of the houses; they were able to save more of the natural woodlands. Short of this, there is woodland protection fencing along the back of those lots. An easement is proposed to preserve some of the woodlands in the back of that.

Member Kocan stated her first reaction was to reduce the lot sizes of Lot 19 to Lot 22 and Lot 23 to Lot 31 to move them farther out of the woodlands, however after reading the RUD she noted larger lots are desired in a one-acre area.

Mr. Fisher stated the Ordinance contemplates density in two respects. One, he interpreted as a density that the property owner is entitled. There is an additional discretionary grant of density that may be permitted. He was not certain 61-lots was determined by right or by discretionary.

Member Kocan assumed that no density credits are being given.

Ms. McBeth stated they are allowed 58-units based on the 0.8 dwelling units per acre that are permitted. A bonus for any amount of open space that would be kept in an amount of 19-units, however they are further restricted by no more than 0.8 units to the gross site area, which limits the site to 61-lots.

Member Kocan clarified that no bonus is being granted, however by right 61-units are permitted.

Ms. McBeth stated 61-units are allowed based on the path that would be placed on open space.

Mr. Fisher stated it sounds like there might be three bonus units.

Ms. McBeth agreed. She stated the bonus units are based on the amount of open space provided.

Mr. Fisher stated it appears that the bonus units are discretionary.

Member Kocan stated the discretionary would be over the maximum.

Mr. Fisher stated the entitlement is 0.8 dwelling units per acre overall. Paragraph 3B on page 3269 of the Ordinance indicates that an additional credit of .08 dwelling units per acre of RUD open space may be granted to the applicant by the City Council after review of the Planning Commission provided that such open space is dedicated to the use of the residents as follows. If the criteria are met, then they might be entitled to it.

Member Kocan noted the last paragraph states, "in no circumstance will the overall dwelling unit density in the RUD including any additional dwelling unit credit exceed the maximum."

Mr. Fisher stated a separated inquiry would be needed as to whether or not the additional three units met the stated criteria.

Ms. McBeth agreed. The three units were allowed based upon the open space area and would need to meet the criteria listed in 3B. The site would never be allowed more than 61-units.

Member Kocan stated with regard to the request from the Garfield Road Residents who requested to have the lots on Garfield Road front Garfield Road. She asked if the homes were permitted to front on a major road within the RUD Agreement.

Ms. McBeth stated this is part of the subdivision restrictions and would also apply in this situation which does not allow homes to front on a major road.

Member Kocan noted to the Garfield Road residents of this request that it cannot be done. The Planning Commission Wavier for opposite-side is not required, as the applicant has stated he would comply with the Ordinance. A waiver is not needed for the length of the boulevard entrance, as this requirement will be met. She asked if the Commission needed to make a recommendation to Council with regard to the 80-acre minimum site size or if it is solely left up to Council.

Mr. Evancoe stated it is a City Council waiver, however the Commission could include a recommendation with this regard for the Council to consider.

Member Kocan stated it is within the 5%. The Commission should weigh both the core reserve area should be protected with the right to be able to develop. Member Kocan did not support the lack of the stub to Maybury Park Estates. She requested additional stubs to the school area, whether it is in the form of a road or pathways. She did not support the development as a gated community as it is exclusionary. She believed the provision of a stub road or emergency access road off of Siena Drive could possibly eliminate the City Council Waiver for the 1300-foot access street stub. She requested additional buffering around the school property. She requested more active area. The Staff indicated to her that the actual wetlands are not within Lots 7, 13 and 14 and that the buffer being located in these properties is not a problem.

Ms. Kay answered, yes.

Member Kocan stated the dwelling units must be a minimum of 75-feet set back around the peripheral property line. It appears that the building envelope is closer than 75-feet. Therefore, she asked if the ordinance reference to dwelling units is the actual house itself.

Mr. Fisher asked if she was referring to the setback.

Member Kocan answered, yes.

Mr. Fisher stated it is the front of the dwelling unit.

Member Kocan stated it would be the back if it were the peripheral property line.

Mr. Fisher stated if it is the back then it would be the back line.

Member Kocan asked if there was a proposal to add a screen porch then it would also have to stay out of the 75-foot setback.

Mr. Fisher agreed. Unless there is a special provision in the ordinance that exempts decks to some degree. He was not certain if it applied in this instance.

Member Kocan stated the petitioner of the addition would have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Mr. Fisher agreed.

Member Kocan was hopeful that the homes would be placed far enough so that those homeowners abutting a perimeter would not have to go before the ZBA for a variance.

Ms. McClain made a clarification of the Waiver required for the 1300-foot spacing along the perimeter. She stated a waiver is still needed along the north side through the core reserve area, otherwise a connection will be required to the north in the area of the core reserve per ordinance requirement. It is 1900-feet across the northern side and would require a connection in that side to the north.

Member Kocan stated she could not determine where the property ended when she visited the site. She asked if a connection between Lot 34 and Lot 35 would satisfy the requirement.

Ms. McClain stated there would still be 1300-feet along the border, which would require a waiver in the Core Reserve Area.

Member Kocan stated she could subscribe to that one Waiver in the Core Reserve Area.

Chairperson Nagy asked if the project is considered under the new Stormwater Ordinance.

Ms. McClain stated the project falls in the area between having final site plan approval (falling completely under the old ordinance) and not having not submitted (falling under the new ordinance). Therefore, it is in the gray area. The Applicant needs to comply to the extent feasible to handle the 100-year storm. The City Staff and the Applicant Engineers have been working together to meet the criteria of the Stormwater Ordinance as much as possible. Currently, they do not comply with it, however they are not required to comply if it would require the loss of either units or the size of the buildings.

Chairperson Nagy asked if the site plan was submitted to the Planning Department on a date prior to or after the date the Ordinance was passed.

Ms. McClain stated it was submitted well before the Ordinance was passed, however she did not have the exact date.

Chairperson Nagy asked what criteria are being used to make these determinations.

Mr. Fisher stated if the project was submitted before the Ordinance was effective, and did have approvals at the time the ordinance was effective, then the project must make every effort to comply with the 100-year requirement unless it is certified by the City Engineer that it is not feasible.

Chairperson Nagy clarified that Maybury Park Estates is on septic tanks.

Ms. McClain stated Maybury Park Estates is proceeding to have sanitary sewer.

Chairperson Nagy asked if the soil would bare septic tanks in this area.

Ms. McClain stated a perk test would be conducted to make that determination. She anticipated that the soil would bare the septic tanks in most areas with the exception of the area around the wetland where an engineer field is preferred.

Chairperson Nagy asked her to explain the term "engineered field".

Ms. McClain stated it is a more complex version to clean the outflow more.

Chairperson Nagy stated there is presently no City Council plan for the placement of sanitary sewer in this area. She asked if the installation of the septic tanks would in any way alter the design of the site.

Mr. Evancoe stated it is possible if the perk tests results were poor and thereby indicating additional lot area is needed to accommodate septic tanks. As a result additional larger lots might be required as opposed to what is shown.

Chairperson Nagy stated an engineer field takes up the most space. Therefore, she asked if the Commission were to approve the preliminary submittal, then could the Council alter the site plan.

Mr. Fisher stated the project is being proposed with public sanitary sewer.

Chairperson Nagy asked how it was possible to make that proposal when the City Council has not approved sanitary sewers. The Applicant is requesting the Commission to approve a plan based on the future.

Mr. Fisher stated the plan is being proposed with sanitary sewer. If sanitary sewer is not available at the time the project is ready to "go" then the project is not approved.

Chairperson Nagy asked where this is documented.

Mr. Fisher stated under many regulations, lot sizes are different when there is public sanitary sewer and when there is not. Thereby, making the density different. If a development is proposed with sanitary sewer and it is not available, then the approval is no longer valid.

Chairperson Nagy asked Mr. Galvin if he agreed with Mr. Fisher’s comments. She clarified that if the City does not approve the sewer connection, then would his applicant agreed to not move forward with his project.

Mr. Galvin stated in its current design, the answer would be no. The applicant would not move forward as it is. Additionally, to his understanding, the only remaining issue with regard to the Public Sewer for this area of the City is related to the financing mechanism. The RUD for Maybury Park Estates requires public sewer. According to the Commission’s discussion and his client’s Application, he anticipated Tuscany would also have public sewer.

Chairperson Nagy noted that to her understanding, Maybury Park Estates was to be designed with septic tanks until such time public sewers were made available.

Mr. Fisher stated that was in the RUD Agreement as it was previously approved. When the agreement went before Council for its last amendment, one of the provisions that Council never addressed was the developer’s proposal to not put septic tanks or temporary facilities in that regard, but to go right to permanent sanitary sewer.

Mr. Galvin agreed with Mr. Fisher’s comments.

Mr. Fisher stated sanitary sewer service at this point in time, is not permanent immediately part of the RUD but will be brought back to Council for consideration in all events.

Chairperson Nagy clarified that it is not part of the RUD Agreement at the present time.

Mr. Fisher answered, correct.

Chairperson Nagy stated the proposal does not meet the intent of the Ordinance. She read the intent of the Ordinance, "It is further the intent of this section to permit permanent preservation of valuable open land, fragile natural resources and rural community character that would be lost under convention development. This would be accomplished by permitting flexible lot sizes in accordance with open land preservation credits…" She stated, as her personal interpretation of the Ordinance from what has been presented, is that the proposed is not in character of the rural area. Instead it is like another Bellagio. The RUD does not state that communities should be gated. She was disappointed with the preservation. The intent of the Ordinance is to preserve all of the core reserve and not just a certain portion. Four-acres of the 28-acres preserved are wetlands. Therefore, she was not impressed with that preservation effort. Chairperson Nagy did not feel there was anything "rural" about of the proposed. She required that the width of the entryway onto Eight Mile Road to meet the Ordinance. She felt the only reason for having the entranceway wide was for aesthetic purposes. She was concerned about the wetlands and the preservation of the wetlands. If the intent of the RUD Ordinance is truly to preserve these areas, then she suggested the removal of Lots 24,25,26,27,28,30 and 31. She did not agree with the placement of the lots on the woodlands. She stated neither the Wetlands Consultant nor the Applicant were able to give a "real" answer regarding the impacts. She asked Ms. McBeth if the amount of preservation meets Ordinance requirements.

Ms. McBeth stated a large area of the core reserve area is being preserved. She believed they are trying to be sensitive to the wetland areas on the site and are trying to provide a variety of lot sizes that would be required by the Ordinance as criteria. The Planning Commission needs to make the determination of whether or not the proposed meets the intent of the Ordinance. Additionally, she stated the three units mentioned earlier are within the discretion of the Commission’s approval in the recommendation to the City Council.

Chairperson Nagy stated she was more amenable to 58-units. She stated there could be a more interesting design created. She did not want the area to be clear-cut as in the Bellagio development.

Mr. Fisher commented further on the Maybury Park Estates sanitary sewer situation. He stated they had not contemplated septic tanks under any event. The contemplation was for a temporary connection to Bellagio to Maybury Park Estates. The question was whether or not they needed to have the temporary connection to Bellagio.

Chairperson Nagy stated although the RUD Ordinance has a discretionary, she found it strange to have eleven units R-A and fifty-five something else. She understood the unit density, however she was referring to the mixed use for one zoned area, which is R-A. The area is zoned R-A. She asked if this was permissible.

Mr. Evancoe noted page 3270 of the RUD Ordinance number 4 refers to lot area. He read, "one family non-clustered detached dwelling shall be subject to the minimum lot area and lot width requirements of the underlying zoning district, the City Council may modify such lot area and lot width requirements where such modification will result in the preservation of open space for those purposes set forth in the said part above."

Chairperson Nagy asked for an interpretation of this verbiage. She clarified that it is not at the discretion of the Commission to determine these matters.

Mr. Evancoe stated it ultimately contemplates that because it is a Council approval and that the actual modification comes form the City Council. Further the Ordinance states, "no lot shall be of an area or width less than that required in R-3." He recalled the underlying purpose for flexibility of lot sizes and dwelling types. In order to achieve this variety, there would need to be lot areas that may vary from the underlying zoning district.

Chairperson Nagy clarified that this authority lies with the City Council and not the Commission.

Mr. Evancoe answered, yes.

Ms. McBeth stated her comments earlier were brief and in actuality, there is more of a variety in lot sizes. She stated 59% of the lots are 20,000 –25,000; 23% are 25,000 – 30,000; 8.2% are 30,000 – 1-acre and six lots are greater than one-acre.

Member Ruyle asked if the plan is approved as a gated community, then would the City accept roads. He assumed the answered is no.

Mr. Fisher agreed. He stated to his understanding, the plan has proposed the roads as e Hprivate road not to be dedicated to the City.

Moved by Markham, seconded by Paul, MOTION AMENDED: In the matter of Tuscany Reserve RUD SP02-30 to recommend approval to the City Council of the RUD Concept Plan, Woodland Permit approval and a favorable recommendation to the City Council for a Non-Minor Use Wetland Permit with the findings that there are a variety of lot sizes provided per Section 2404.4, that the proposed RUD Concept Plan meets the intent of the Ordinance 2407.7 A and B with the contingencies that the RUD will contain 58 lots and not the proposed 61 lots, the stub street Castello Drive will be continued through to Maybury Park Estates, the Developer will provide a definition as to how the water and sewer issues will be resolved, a more extensive evaluation of the wetland impact will be provided (specifically referring to the discussions of Wetland H and Wetland I and the water flow), an additional pathway to the school property will be provided at the north end of the development, the community will not be gated because it is in conflict with the rural nature of the surrounding areas, the width and length of the Eight Mile entrance and Garfield entrance will meet the Ordinance, the active recreation area will be modified to better meet the intent of active recreation and will be more centrally located to the development, preservation of woodlands on Lot 19, Lot 24 through Lot 31 and Lot 34 until the lots are purchased and the homes are designed and these lots will be reviewed on a lot by lot basis that is sensitive to the woodlands, the City Council Waiver of the required 80-acre minimum site size, City Council Waiver for access stub streets every 1300-feet around the core reserve area, Eight Mile Road shall meet the Ordinance requirements for opposite-side driveway spacing, construction access will only be via Eight Mile Road entrance, lot configuration will not be finalized or will be adjusted as necessary dependant upon the soil conditions, the dwelling units along the property shall not be closer than 75-feet along the property line, the Applicant shall address a potential stub to the school property at the western and northern side before the matter goes before the City Council and subject to all comments on the attached review letters and as were discussed tonight by the Consultants and Staff.

Ms. McGuire asked if the Commission wanted to include the additional screening along the west property line for the school.

Member Markham and Member Paul amended the motion.

Moved by Markham, seconded by Paul, MOTION AMENDED: In the matter of Tuscany Reserve RUD SP02-30 to recommend approval to the City Council of the RUD Concept Plan, Woodland Permit approval and a favorable recommendation to the City Council for a Non-Minor Use Wetland Permit with the findings that there are a variety of lot sizes provided per Section 2404.4, that the proposed RUD Concept Plan meets the intent of the Ordinance 2407.7 A and B with the contingencies that the RUD will contain 58 lots and not the proposed 61 lots, the stub street Castello Drive will be continued through to Maybury Park Estates, the Developer will provide a definition as to how the water and sewer issues will be resolved, a more extensive evaluation of the wetland impact will be provided (specifically referring to the discussions of Wetland H and Wetland I and the water flow), an additional pathway to the school property will be provided at the north end of the development, the community will not be gated because it is in conflict with the rural nature of the surrounding areas, the width and length of the Eight Mile entrance and Garfield entrance will meet the Ordinance, the active recreation area will be modified to better meet the intent of active recreation and will be more centrally located to the development, preservation of woodlands on Lot 19, Lot 24 through Lot 31 and Lot 34 until the lots are purchased and the homes are designed and these lots will be reviewed on a lot by lot basis that is sensitive to the woodlands, the City Council Waiver of the required 80-acre minimum site size, City Council Waiver for access stub streets every 1300-feet around the core reserve area, Eight Mile Road shall meet the Ordinance requirements for opposite-side driveway spacing, construction access will only be via Eight Mile Road entrance, lot configuration will not be finalized or will be adjusted as necessary dependant upon the soil conditions, the dwelling units along the property shall not be closer than 75-feet along the property line, the Applicant shall address a potential stub to the school property at the western and northern side before the matter goes before the City Council, additional screening shall be provided along the west property line for the school and subject to all comments on the attached review letters and as were discussed tonight by the Consultants and Staff.

Mr. Fisher stated the action in Item No. 7 format contemplates that it would be subject to something that would be addressed at a later time. The approval of a Woodland Permit and a favorable recommendation for a Non-Minor Use Wetland Permit. He clarified that the Commission is not making an approval at this time and instead are indicating that these approvals would follow later.

Member Markham stated that is her preference, however, she thought it is done at the time of Preliminary Site Plan review, which is not before the Commission.

Mr. Fisher stated that it is somewhat contradictory to recommend a permit when it has been said that there is insufficient wetland information. City Council will review the matter for Final Site Plan Review; therefore, he suggested making the recommendations at the time of Site Plan Review.

Member Markham and Member Paul amended the motion.

Moved by Markham, seconded by Paul, MOTION AMENDED: In the matter of Tuscany Reserve RUD SP02-30 to recommend approval to the City Council of the RUD Concept Plan with the findings that there are a variety of lot sizes provided per Section 2404.4, that the proposed RUD Concept Plan meets the intent of the Ordinance 2407.7 A and B with the contingencies that the RUD will contain 58 lots and not the proposed 61 lots, the stub street Castello Drive will be continued through to Maybury Park Estates, the Developer will provide a definition as to how the water and sewer issues will be resolved, a more extensive evaluation of the wetland impact will be provided (specifically referring to the discussions of Wetland H and Wetland I and the water flow), an additional pathway to the school property will be provided at the north end of the development, the community will not be gated because it is in conflict with the rural nature of the surrounding areas, the width and length of the Eight Mile entrance and Garfield entrance will meet the Ordinance, the active recreation area will be modified to better meet the intent of active recreation and will be more centrally located to the development, preservation of woodlands on Lot 19, Lot 24 through Lot 31 and Lot 34 until the lots are purchased and the homes are designed and these lots will be reviewed on a lot by lot basis that is sensitive to the woodlands, the City Council Waiver of the required 80-acre minimum site size, City Council Waiver for access stub streets every 1300-feet around the core reserve area, Eight Mile Road shall meet the Ordinance requirements for opposite-side driveway spacing, construction access will only be via Eight Mile Road entrance, lot configuration will not be finalized or will be adjusted as necessary dependant upon the soil conditions, the dwelling units along the property shall not be closer than 75-feet along the property line, the Applicant shall address a potential stub to the school property at the western and northern side before the matter goes before the City Council, additional screening shall be provided along the west property line for the school and subject to all comments on the attached review letters and as were discussed tonight by the Consultants and Staff.

Member Shroyer noted the expressed concerns of the Final Site Plan. He asked if it is appropriate to request the matter return to the Commission for Final Site Plan Approval.

Mr. Fisher stated it would be appropriate if the Commission felt there were items they had not yet reserved in their motion.

Member Shroyer felt more comfortable if the matter returned for Final Site Plan Approval due to the numerous recommendations.

Mr. Fisher explained that hypothetically the City Council could approve a plan without all of the recommendations and instead indicates to do something else. For example, Council could approve the plan without the stub street. In that scenario, the matter would be foreclosed from the Commission review when the matter returned for Final Site Plan Approval.

Member Shroyer asked if there is an option to address that scenario in the motion to ensure that it does not occur.

Mr. Fisher suggested that the Commission could request City Council to not take such action until Final Site Plan Review.

Chairperson Nagy stated the Ordinance give the Commission the ability to make a recommendation to the City Council with a "laundry list"; however, City Council has the ability to change that "laundry list" and the Final Site Plan. The Commission will not have the ability to change the Final Site Plan. Therefore, the action City Council takes; the Commission has to adhere to.

Member Shroyer understood her comments and asked why the matter would return to the Commission if the body had no authority to make changes.

Mr. Fisher stated the Commission would only be bound by those few things that Council fixes in concrete. He anticipated there could be many items returning for Final Site Plan review that would need to be addressed.

Member Shroyer asked if the matter would return for Final.

Chairperson Nagy answered, yes.

Member Shroyer clarified that it does not need to be included in the motion.

Chairperson Nagy answered, yes. She called for the vote.

Mr. Fisher recommended amending the motion to clarify that the Planning Commission desires the Tuscany Reserve to return for Final Site Plan Review.

Chairperson Nagy clarified that the Commission should amend the motion to state the Planning Commission requests the Final Site Plan to return to the Commission.

Mr. Fisher answered, yes.

Chairperson Nagy entertained the amendment to the motion.

Member Markham amended the motion to also include the wording "58-unit maximum".

Member Paul accepted the amendment.

Moved by Markham, seconded by Paul, CARRIED (8-1): In the matter of Tuscany Reserve RUD SP02-30 to recommend approval to the City Council of the RUD Concept Plan with the findings that there are a variety of lot sizes provided per Section 2404.4, that the proposed RUD Concept Plan meets the intent of the Ordinance 2407.7 A and B with the contingencies that the RUD will contain 58 lot maximum and not the proposed 61 lots, the stub street Castello Drive will be continued through to Maybury Park Estates, the Developer will provide a definition as to how the water and sewer issues will be resolved, a more extensive evaluation of the wetland impact will be provided (specifically referring to the discussions of Wetland H and Wetland I and the water flow), an additional pathway to the school property will be provided at the north end of the development, the community will not be gated because it is in conflict with the rural nature of the surrounding areas, the width and length of the Eight Mile entrance and Garfield entrance will meet the Ordinance, the active recreation area will be modified to better meet the intent of active recreation and will be more centrally located to the development, preservation of woodlands on Lot 19, Lot 24 through Lot 31 and Lot 34 until the lots are purchased and the homes are designed and these lots will be reviewed on a lot by lot basis that is sensitive to the woodlands, the City Council Waiver of the required 80-acre minimum site size, City Council Waiver for access stub streets every 1300-feet around the core reserve area, Eight Mile Road shall meet the Ordinance requirements for opposite-side driveway spacing, construction access will only be via Eight Mile Road entrance, lot configuration will not be finalized or will be adjusted as necessary dependant upon the soil conditions, the dwelling units along the property shall not be closer than 75-feet along the property line, the Applicant shall address a potential stub to the school property at the western and northern side before the matter goes before the City Council, additional screening shall be provided along the west property line for the school and subject to all comments on the attached review letters and as were discussed tonight by the Consultants and Staff, subject to the matter returning for Final Site Plan Review.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Paul, Shroyer, Sprague

No: Ruyle

Public Hearing on the request of Claudio Rossi of Mirage Development for a recommendation to City Council for a Tentative Preliminary Plat and Wetlands Permit and a Woodland Permit approval. The subject property is located in Section 26, south of Ten Mile Road and west of Meadowbrook Road. The developer is proposing a 42 lot single-family subdivision in the R-4 (One Family Residential) District. The subject property is 18.68 acres.

Chairperson Nagy asked Mr. Fisher if this new Commission would require a new Preliminary Site Plan for the area since the approvals are expired, with the exception to the MDEQ Permit, which expires 12/31/03.

Mr. Fisher indicated that once a site plan expires it requires a new proposed site plan, unless an extension was granted.

Chairperson Nagy indicated that the Commission has questions regarding the road to the south.

Mr. Fisher also questioned the outer boundaries of the plat and whether or not the road to the south is within the boundaries of the plat.

Chairperson Nagy asked if it is appropriate for the Commission to proceed without this information.

Mr. Fisher suggested that the Applicant provide the information and the Engineering and Planning Department could confirm the information.

Chairperson Nagy asked if it is appropriate for the Commission to assume that the matter is starting "fresh" and the first Preliminary Site Plan is before the body for review.

Mr. Fisher indicated the Tentative Preliminary Plat is before the Commission.

Chairperson Nagy called Ms. McBeth forward to present the matter.

Ms. McBeth introduced the request of Claudio Rossi of Mirage Development for a recommendation to City Council for a Tentative Preliminary Plat and for Wetlands Permit and for Woodland Permit approval. The subject property is located in Section 26, south of Ten Mile and west of Meadowbrook Road. The subject property is currently undeveloped land. The property to the west is developed with the Novi Ridge Apartments; to the north is the Orchard Hills Elementary School; to the north and to the east is the Orchard Hills Subdivision; to the east, across Meadowbrook Road, is the Willowbrook Estates No. 2 Subdivision; to the south is an undeveloped wetland and woodland property, and the Meadowbrook Lake Subdivision; and to the southwest the property is developed with a light industrial park, which fronts on Nine Mile Road. The subject property is zoned R-4, One Family Residential, as are the properties to the north, and to the east, across Meadowbrook Road. The property to the south is zoned R-3, One Family Residential, to the west, the property is zoned RM-1 Low Density Multiple Family and the property to the southwest is zoned I-L, Light Industrial. The Master Plan for Land Use recommends Single Family uses for the site and properties to the northeast, east and south; to the north, the Master Plan recommends public use for the property where the school is located; to the west the Master Plan recommends multiple family uses for the property where the Novi Ridge Apartments are located; and to the southwest, the Master Plan recommends light industrial uses within the corporate park. The submitted Tentative Preliminary Plat shows the proposed development of a 42 lot single-family subdivision on the northwest part of the property. A new road is proposed to provide direct access to the new subdivision from Meadowbrook Road and will be called Mallott Drive, which is across Meadowbrook Road. Access will also be provided through the subdivision streets Borchart, Aspen and Silvery Lane, which are within the existing Orchard Hills Subdivision. The development of the subdivision lots (42-lots) will be confined to the north part of the property as well the proposed Mallot Drive going to Meadowbrook Road. The property to the south consists of a large, high quality wetland area that continues off site and is contiguous to the south and to the west. The lots in the proposed Orchard Hills West Subdivision will meet the requirements for minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet for the R-4 district. Each lot will have adequate access to the road system, be properly orientated to the road and will provide space for adequate building setback for the proposed lots. Sidewalks are proposed along both sides of the proposed streets, with the exception of Mallot drive, which has a sidewalk provided only on the north side. An 8-foot wide bike path is proposed along the entire length of Meadowbrook Road. The Planning Commission as well as many of the neighbors here this evening may remember that the Planning Commission and City Council reviewed a proposed subdivision several years ago. The detailed minutes of those meetings were included in the Planning Commission packages. A number of issues were considered at that time including access to the property, road conditions, traffic, sidewalks, engineering questions, woodlands and wetlands, floodplain and natural habitat, as well as a number of other issues. An Ad-Hoc Committee was formed to review a number of issues at the time of the first review. The Ad-Hoc Committee made a recommendation to City Council that the provision of a permanent access road connection to Meadowbrook Road was a desirable feature in a location and configuration similar to the road shown on the plat this evening. Ultimately, City Council approved the Tentative Preliminary Plat however, the subdivision was never constructed and that approval has expired. The Planning Review indicated minor items, which could be addressed at the time of Final Preliminary Plat review. The Wetlands review indicated that a Planning Commission recommendation to City Council is needed for the approval of a Non-Minor Use Wetland Permit. It can be noted that the applicant has provided a copy of the permit granted from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, which was reviewed under their laws. Local Wetlands approval is still required, as indicated. The Woodlands review indicated the Planning Commission approval of a Woodlands Permit is recommended with additional information to be provided at the time of the Subdivision Improvement Plan Review. The Landscaping, Traffic, Engineering and Fire Department reviews all revealed only minor items that may be address at a later plan submittal, following City Council review of the proposed plat.

Richard Lewiston owner/proprietor of the proposed project indicated the proposed plan is almost precisely the form that was granted Tentative Preliminary Plat Approval by the City Council in 1998. A Wetland Permit and Woodland Permit were also approved in conjunction with that approval. He assumed the responsibility for the expiration of the approvals, which he was unaware of until his submittal of engineering drawings for Final Preliminary approval. As a result, a new file was made in January 2002 to restart the process. The same plat, approved in 1998, was submitted. In 1995, the plat did not have Mallot Drive extending from the subdivision to Meadowbrook Road; instead it depended upon the three public roads for access. Those roads were built approximately 40-years ago, are nineteen and twenty feet in width with open swails on either side and do not have public sidewalks. Additionally, the children play in those streets. The residents in the subdivision strongly expressed that the access through their subdivision would be poor and dangerous. He was then asked to voluntarily table the plat. The Ad-Hoc Committee was formed in 1996. All City Departments, Orchard Hills Subdivision and Meadowbrook Lake Subdivision, School District, outside Consultants were represented on the Ad-Hoc Committee. Every aspect of the subdivision was studied including water resource questions, flood plain questions, wetland and the question of access. The Committee determined the best means of serving the subdivision would be a public permanent road called Mallot, which would be accompanied by widening lanes of Meadowbrook Road and providing left turn lanes. It was felt that the road would relieve what had become a bad traffic problem inside Orchard Hills West, particularly in the morning hours when the children are traveling to school. He indicated the fact that there were insufficient exits out of the subdivision at peak hours, it was felt the new traffic and the southerly portion of Orchard Hills would utilize the new road. The Committee and he agreed that it would be a better means of access to Meadowbrook Road and to the south. The effect of the road on the wetlands and woodlands was minor. There was 38,000 square feet, (of approximately 40-acres of preserved land), effected by this disruption, which became the subject of the issued permit by MDEQ. The study contained an extensive analysis of the flood plain and storm water characteristics of the land. It was determined by JCK & Associates that statistically the subdivision would be irrelevant in terms of the flood plain characteristics of the Walled Lake branch of the River Rouge. The plan represents the plan approved in 1998 and three years of study. It represented what the City determined was the best plan for the area.

Member Kocan announced that she has received correspondence regarding the matter.

Orchard Hills Homeowners Association wrote, "On behalf of Orchard Hills Homeowners’ Association, I would like to request the following items be discussed and reviewed prior to your recommendation to City Council. 1) It has been approximately four (4) years since this project was last reviewed by the Commission. Therefore, we would like a revised/updated Environmental Impact Statement be completed regarding the woodlands, wetlands and potential endangered species located on site prior to any action taken by the Commission. 2) According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (Trip Generation, 6^th Edition), the proposed 42 Single-Family homes will generate approximately 402 additional trips per day (9.57 trips per dwelling nit x 42 units) thru our subdivision. Therefore, we support the following: a) the proposed additional access road (Mallot Drive) to Meadowbrook Road; b) The proposed ten (10) foot wide pedestrian walkway to Orchard Hills Elementary School; c) Five (5) foot wide sidewalks throughout Orchard Hills Elementary School; d) The proposed eight (8) foot wide bike path/boardwalk along the entire Meadowbrook Road frontage. We also request that all construction traffic be limited to access through the proposed Mallot Drive only. 3) We would like to request that as many mature and healthy trees be preserved outside the building envelopes as possible. Further, we would like to request a twenty (20) foot Tree Conservation Easement be provided along the northern and eastern property lines adjacent to Orchard Hills Elementary and Orchard Hills Subdivision. 4) Ensure that no additional flooding or water runoff , greater than the Agricultural rate, shed into the existing Orchard Hills’ homeowners. 5) Impact wetlands be mitigated at a ratio or 2 to 1 and impacted woodlands be mitigated per City requirements. Please read this letter as part of the Public hearing and included it into the official record. Should you have any questions, you may contact me at 248-348-4390. Respectfully submitted, Orchard Hills Homeowners’ Association. Terry Croad, AICP, ASLA President".

Stormwater Management & Watershed Stewardship Committee wrote, "It has come to the attention of the Stormwater Management and Watershed Stewardship Committee that the Planning Commission is holding a public hearing for a recommendation City Council for Tentative Preliminary Plat, Woodland Permit and Wetland Permit approval for the Orchard Hills West Subdivision. Although the Committee is not opposed to the development of the Orchard Hills West Subdivision in concept, we have certain issues and concerns that we feel may not have been taken into consideration regarding this development and therefore, recommend that the approval of the Preliminary Plat and Permits associated with this project be tabled until further evaluation and comments can be offered by the Committee. There are a number of issues that the committee would like to address regarding this matter of which we feel the Planning Commission needs to be made aware. The main concern of the Committee is with respect to the construction of Mallot Drive proposed to be constructed at the south end of the development, exiting east to Meadowbrook Road. This project area contains considerable wetlands and woodlands that would be negatively impacted due to the construction of the proposed permanent roadway. These natural areas are some of the largest habitats of this type in the area of the City of Novi. The function of these natural areas helps protect the water quality of the Rouge River that flows through the area. Due to the proximity of the road construction to the river and potential construction impacts, we do not feel the protection of the water quality can be maintain over the short or long term. The Committee is also concerned with the existing sedimentation problem in Meadowbrook Lake and there is concern that the construction of this roadway in addition to the eventual home construction could exasperate the problem. Engineering options have indicated that increased traffic volumes can be handled by the existing roadways on the previously constructed Orchard Hills Subdivision located to the north and east of the development. If this is valid, then we feel that other options should be considered to preserve these natural areas instead of constructing Mallot Drive where it has been proposed. The option to construct a temporary access from the north from Ten Mile Road is one option that was considered in the past. It should be revisited to determine its feasibility. To further emphasize our environmental concerns, the elimination impairment of the wetland and woodland areas that would result due to the construction of the proposed road is not consistent with the City of Novi Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan that was adopted by the City Council in December of 2001. The particular items that are inconsistent with the plan include: 1) Not encouraging preservation of conservation easements and natural features areas and 2) Not enhancing soil erosion and sedimentation prevention whenever possible. As you know the purpose of the Storm Water Management and Watershed Stewardship Committee is to guide the City of Novi in the protection and the improvement of storm water and other water resources of the Rouge and Huron River water shed within the City’s boundaries. Since there are other reasonable options that the City of Novi can consider regarding this matter that will conserve the natural features and help maintain environmental quality in this sensitive area of the City of Novi and the Rouge River watershed, we strongly request again that this matter be tabled so that a solution could be implemented that would be beneficial for the City of Novi and its residents and will contribute to maintaining environmental quality that we are charged to preserve." (Stormwater Management Committee Watershed Committee members: Michael Barton, Richard Bond, Warren Jocz, Melissa Pettijohn, Mary Richards, Asa Smith and Susan Thompson)

Melissa Pettijohn wrote, "I am writing regarding the public hearing to be held tonight. As a member of the Stormwater Management Committee Watershed Committee, I feel strongly that this request should be tabled until the Committee has the opportunity to review the plans and their environmental impact on the watershed. As a relatively new Committee we must work on our visibility within the confines of City Government if we are a fervent dedicated bunch who’s earnest desire is to preserve and protect water quality in Novi and southeastern Michigan. We have previously requested to the City Council that any issues, projects or situation brought to Cit Council involving stormwater management as it relates to the business of any City of Novi Department that has not first been brought before the Committee be postponed for further discussion until such matters are presented to the Stormwater Management & Watershed Stewardship Committee for review and comment (October 2001). I hope you will have the opportunity to fulfill our covenant with the City in regards to watershed management."

Mr. Fisher indicated the Stormwater Management & Watershed Stewardship Committee is an excellent committee that has done important work in the community. It seems the Committee has asked the Commission to table the matter to allow the Committee to review matters in connection with the plat. While he found it appropriate and valuable for the Stormwater Management & Watershed Stewardship Committee to conduct a review, he did not deem the Ordinance as constructed in manner contemplating the tabling of the proposed plat for the review of the Committee. He clarified that he was not indicating that the Commission could not table the matter for other reasons. He advised that if the Commission decided to move the matter forward then it could be done with a motion that would request the City Council to take into consideration the matters raised by the Stormwater Committee and between the time the Commission and the Council would consider it, have a contemplation of the Stormwater Management & Watershed Stewardship Committee doing a review and making a recommendation.

Chairperson Nagy announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the matter to the Public.

Richard Bond 46700 Nine Mile Road stated, "I am a member of the Stormwater Management & Watershed Stewardship Committee. I would like to emphasize that we understand what our role is in the City. I would request that the implementation of the Stormwater Prevention Pollution initiative in December of last year, that you take into consideration all of the requirements of that Ordinance that was passed by the City Council, as well as all of the best management practices for watershed and make sure that everything that is presented to you in this proposal meets all of those requirements before you move forward. If you are not satisfied, you do have the opportunity to table it to get all the answers that you require. Thank you."

Dennis Ward, Meadowbrook Lake subdivision stated, "I have some concerns regarding the development. It seems to me that one of the common threads that we have been talking about have been environmental issues, woodlands, wetlands and things of that nature. It seems to me that we are talking about building a new development. One positive of that development is the existing woodlands and wetlands. There are two subdivisions here that have such a feature in that they have woodlands and wetlands. By coming through with an access road and developing this area, we are significantly impacting that area. One of the things that I am really concerned about, is that once we develop this area then we have opened the gates to further developing south and west and taking over the entire area. That area is full of trails and it is a really nice natural area. I walk through there on a daily basis. That is one of my concerns. Thank you."

Terry Croad 41861 Aspen stated, "I am the President of the Orchard Hills Homeowners Association. I am one house removed from the Aspen stub street. Madam Chair, you previously brought up a matter of procedure. I will not reiterate what was in my letter other than to highlight. This site plan was issued a number 94-09 which I imagine began in 1994. Since it has lapsed and the Planner has confirmed it, I believe it should be issued a new number, such as 02. I certainly in an ideal situation would like to see the Orchard Hills West remain in its native state. Although I do believe the owner has a reasonable right to develop his land. I am not here to say that I do not want the development. I just think that we should follow proper procedures. So, I would ask if this should go back to the drawing board and issued a new number. If this is the first step, then so be it. You can make sure that the development is environmentally sensitively developed. Our children walk to Orchard Hills School and we do not currently have sidewalks and they walk in the streets. This subdivision is immediately adjacent to where many of these kids access Orchard Hills School. By putting 402 additional car trips per day solely on our roads without any additional access is just looking for trouble in my opinion. We have lived there six years and we have had several severe storms, both ice and snow storms, to the point where we have had mature maple trees and others come down across Borchart Road prohibiting emergency vehicles and access. I would be in favor of the Mallot Drive access road. I would think when we have to consider the safety of our children and our residents verses the environment, I think we could do both. I think we could preserve the environment and still protect our children without doing one over the other. I would like you to consider that. I think if this development is going to work safely, then we need to have that access road to Meadowbrook Road. With that I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have about my letter. But, I think that we need to take a step back, have a new number issued and start the procedures over. I would like the opportunity for the Stormwater Management & Watershed Stewardship Committee to give their input before you make your recommendation to the Council. We have waited 8-years and I do not think a few more months are going to matter. Thank you."

Jim Conklin resident of Orchard Hills Subdivision stated, "I live on Sycamore. I just wanted to point out a couple of things my wife and I am concerned about. The construction of Mallot Road would definitely be disrupting the woodlands, which I know in 1995 was a number one priority on the DNR list to protect that land. The 40-acres in fact is not the only portion of woodlands that are back there. That woodland track goes back through the apartment complex and past the railroad tracks. By putting a road there, you are not only destroying that 40-acres, but also those woodlands that go farther back. Secondly, that access road I would imagine would eliminate some of the traffic in Orchard Hills Subdivision but only for people wishing to travel south on Meadowbrook Road. Any one wishing to go north on Meadowbrook Road, west on Ten Mile or east on Ten Mile it is an estimated 300 cars divided by four. Those people will all still be traveling though Orchard Hills Subdivision because it will be the shortest route note impeded by more than one stop sign. There are no sidewalks in our subdivision. There are no curbs on the road and there is an elementary school. There will be a lot of extra traffic and a lot of children walking to school. I believed that would be dangerous and unwise to go forward with this plan. Thank you very much."

Mike Barton 41635 Chattman stated, "I am also a member of the Stormwater Management & Watershed Stewardship Committee. I was also a member of the Ad-Hoc Committee that looked at the road access issue back in 1986 that was referred to by the applicant. I can offer some history of this project from being on that Committee. This project first came to the Planning Commission back in 1995. The City’s Consultants without Mallot Drive approved the traffic considerations for the new subdivision. It was considered to be no problem with the traffic coming from the houses. Fortunately, a gentleman from Orchard Hills stood up and asked if the experts have considered whether or not the road can bear the construction traffic and they had not. The project was then tabled and the project looked into. It was found that he was right and the road could not support the construction traffic. The Ad-Hoc Committee was first formed for the purpose of trying to find a temporary access to the site so that they would not go through the existing subdivision. There was no talk of a permanent road up until that point in time. During the process, when it became clear that some temporary road was required, there emerged a permanent road idea and that did not happen until after negotiation with the School District fell apart because the price could not be agreed for how much the developer would have to pay to have a temporary access through the school. Out of that emerged the permanent road, which was sold to the Planning Commission on this issue of people/safety versus environment. Coming out of that choice they said destroy an acre of the irreplaceable unique wetlands and that was bought. At that time, no one said there is a third option. The third option would be to allow as it is required to have 42-homes in that site. If you have a safety problem, then you do not solve a safety problem by destroying what the City called irreplaceable, unique wetlands preservation grant to preserve the area in its entirety was actually approved by the State but later the funding was withdrawn for political reasons. No one ever looked at that time to the issue of reducing the number of homes in the subdivision to make it safe. They said let’s destroy the wetlands. It is not really a choice between safety and environment, it is a choice between safety or destroyed wetlands or allow a certain number of homes in the subdivision. No one has never addressed that issue. I think this Commission should address that in reviewing this site. I also want to emphasize what the other gentleman said. If you apply some common sense, this southern road is not providing the safety that everybody hopes. It only helps people going south and there is nothing even south on Meadowbrook Road to even go to unless you are going to the freeway two mile away. Also, if you look at the corner houses, ask yourself what this road is doing to those corner houses. Some of those houses are now surrounded on three sides by road. I do not think you are going to find any other house in the City of Novi like that and I do not think it is something that those people really want. Thank you."

Chairperson Nagy asked if there were any other audience participants to speak to the matter. Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing and turned the matter over to the Commission for discussion.

Chairperson Nagy asked the Applicant to address Mr. Fisher’s question regarding the outer boundaries of the road and whether or not it is within the boundaries of the plat.

Mr. Lewiston indicated the boundaries of the plat included the outer boundaries of the road. The plat consists of an intersection at Meadowbrook Road, dedication of Meadowbrook Road, the street right-of-way itself and the body of the subdivision. He stated the 18-acres includes it.

Chairperson Nagy asked if a new 2002 number was issued for the site plan.

Mr. Evancoe believed the underlying concern of the audience participant for the project to be reviewed and processed as a new application, which it is. Assigning a new number is not practical in terms of how the Department internally files projects. It is important for the Planning Department, in terms of continuity, to be able to file the current proceedings with what took place previously. He assured the Commission and the Audience that tonight’s proceedings are being processed as a new application.

Chairperson Nagy indicated the Site Plan is the same.

Mr. Evancoe indicated that the site plan was slightly amended from the version approved in 1998.

Member Paul noted her concern(s) with the stormwater issues. She found it extremely important to obtain the Stormwater Management Committee’s opinion. She questioned if the Commission should be reviewing a plan in which all the approvals have expired with the exception of the MDEQ Permit. Regardless of the reason(s) for the expirations, she had a problem reviewing the information due to this technicality. She suggested that if the plan is forwarded to the City Council and returns to the Commission for Final then having the Stormwater Management in the middle, however she preferred it to come to the Commission first from the Committee. She was also concerned with the health, safety and welfare of the children. On a personal note, she was aware of the traffic problems. She asked if the Applicant was amenable to provide a sidewalk to the school.

Mr. Lewiston indicated that the recommendations of the review letters are brand new and are dated from February 20, 2002 to July 23, 2002. The letters are a result of the filing of the Preliminary Plat in January 2002. The subdivision plan always contemplated the construction of a walkway to the school along the easterly boundary of the subdivision to accommodate the school children.

Member Paul asked if the plan was actually re-reviewed or if the approvals were based on the previous reviews letters.

Mr. Evancoe indicated the plan was re-reviewed. The review letters are up-to-date and represent thorough new reviews.

Member Paul had a problem with the whole issue. She had a problem with going over the Middle Rouge, the Stormwater Management & Watershed Stewardship Committee not having the matter addressed, health and safety of the children and the traffic flow. For these reasons, she indicated that she would not be supporting the request.

Member Markham recognized that a lot of work was done over the years to minimize the impact and improve the situation to the greatest extent possible. The property owner has the right to develop his property. She felt a great deal of the total parcel has been preserved. The number of proposed units is considerably less than what the Developer could by right construct on the parcel. The Developer indicated offered a contract for Conservation Easement to ensure the wetlands are permanently preserved, which addressed the audience participant’s raised concern. She noted her understanding of a conservation easement in that the property south of the proposed road could not be developed. In regard to the future proposed homes located east of the development, she asked why the site is not being developed in two phases.

Mr. Lewiston explained that in 1998 the City asked what upland areas of the site could be developed in the future. Therefore, these seven or eight possible sites were indicated on the plan. There were upland areas within the wooded conservation area, however access to those homes would have been impossible. Mr. Lewiston noted the notation in the files of 1998, which indicates that he has no intention of developing the eight sites. Those eight sites are drawn on the plan to indicate the boundaries of the woodland and wetland areas. The Conservation Easement will include all of the property not used for the subdivision.

Member Markham clarified that the Final Site Plan would not have these lots.

Mr. Lewiston indicated that those eight lots were never part of the plat and instead are marked "merely possible". He reminded the Commission that only 38,000 square feet of the 60-acres are disturbed.

Member Markham did not support the temporary road, as it is ultimately a hazard. She felt both the new and old neighborhoods were concerned with having a well-constructed road for the construction traffic followed by permanent road access to Meadowbrook Road for both of the subdivisions. She stated that although it would not carry all of the traffic, it would relieve some of the congestion mentioned in the submitted documentation and in the discussion this evening. She supported the idea of a permanent road. She noted the area where the wetland is proposed to be filled and asked the Staff to discuss the drainage plan and stormwater plan.

Ms. McClain indicated that the Tentative Preliminary Plat stage does not require in-depth engineering detail. The drainage along the eastern portion of the road, the mitigation area, is proposed to flow into a water quality basin and back across to the mitigation area. The western portion of the road will flow through a sedimentation structure before flowing into any of the wetlands.

Member Markham referred to the correspondence, which requested that the impacted wetlands to be mitigated at a ration of 2:1 and the woodlands mitigated per the City requirements. She asked Mr. Lewiston if it is his intention to meet this.

Mr. Lewiston indicated that he meets and exceeds this requirement. There is a larger mitigation area than is required. Additionally, the already approved tree plan indicates that the replacement trees are in excess of the woodland requirement.

Member Markham asked the Applicant’s proposed price range and style of the houses intended for the lots.

Mr. Lewiston indicated the builder is Claudio Rossi of Mirage Development.

Member Markham hoped the development would be consistent and compatible with the surrounding area.

Mr. Lewiston stated a 10,000 square foot lot with 80-feet of frontage tends to lend itself to a house in the $300,000 range, which is an affordable home by today’s standards.

Member Markham was pleased to find more reasonably priced homes being built in the City. She found it a good balance to have of housing at a lower price range.

Mr. Lewiston hoped to have the same type of residents that currently reside in the Orchard Hills Subdivision.

Member Ruyle recalled the original proposal for the construction of roads through the existing subdivision. The use of the public roads for construction access would have torn up them up and the residents were opposed. He asked Ms. McGuire to comment on the impact(s) on the woodlands and wetlands.

Ms. McGuire stated there is a lot of history behind the project. She stated the previous review letters from former Landscape Architect, Linda Lemke (who originally reviewed the plan) were provided to the Commission with the intent to provide history. She agreed that the property is beautiful and approximately 2-acres would be impacted, however after weighing all of the factors, she did not find the proposal unreasonable. She felt the residents had a legitimate concern with regard to the construction traffic through the area. Initially, from an environmental point of view, she thought the road should be removed, however, after reviewing the history of the project she found the efforts to balance everyone’s concerns. Secondly, from an environmental point of view, the placement and removal of a temporary road will destroy the trees within the roadway. She suggested the possibility of having a narrow temporary road of 15-20 feet, however this option would compact the soils and then the gravel would have to be removed and the area reforested. She stated this option does not address the traffic concerns.

Member Ruyle asked if she was suggesting a narrow road that would be made a permanent road.

Ms. McGuire clarified her comments. A construction road could be made narrower and then removed.

Member Ruyle stated that he personally travels Meadowbrook Road three or four times daily. He was able to visualize the difficulties Orchard Hills Subdivision would have with traffic. Likewise, his subdivision does not have sidewalks and the children play in the street. For these reasons, he supported the idea of a permanent road. Member Ruyle indicated that he liked the concept plan and would support the plan with a permanent road.

Member Shroyer did not support streets or sidewalks that "go nowhere". Therefore, he asked Mr. Lewiston if he would be amenable to make Sycamore Drive a cul-de-sac. He noted that the alternative option to tie it back into Mallot would create an island of a lot.

Mr. Lewiston indicated that that area is part of the old subdivision.

Member Shroyer understood that this option was not applicable since the area is part of the old subdivision.

Mr. Lewiston stated the property to the west is a protected area.

Member Shroyer stated the same situation is encountered with the extension of Woodland Creek to Mallot.

Mr. Lewiston agreed. He stated these streets are part of the old subdivision.

Member Shroyer questioned why the previous commission would have created roads that dead-end into wetlands and woodlands.

Mr. Lewiston indicated that there was not a law at that time.

Member Shroyer agreed.

Mr. Lewiston believed the streets were not finished and were used by the residents as part of their lots.

Member Shroyer concurred with Member Ruyle’s comments that Mallot Drive should be made a permanent road. He was concerned with the fact that updated wetland information was not provided. Member Shroyer supported the proposed with the strong recommendation that the City Council have the Stormwater Management Committee review the information prior to finalizing their decision.

Member Avdoulos stated that according to the Planning Department’s review, the proposed seemed to meet the requirements. He agreed that the owner has the reasonable right to develop his land. Although the approvals were expired, he did not find it appropriate to have the owner to provide items that were too unreasonable. Member Avdoulos concurred with Member Shroyer’s comments. He supported the provision of sidewalks. He agreed that the homes should keep the same intent through the subdivision. He was concerned with the permanent road’s entry into the site. Although it might be appropriate for construction access, he described it as a long driveway for the future residents. He supported the proposal, however, he also recommended that the Stormwater Management Committee review the materials prior to the City Council making a final decision.

Member Papp agreed with the recommendations regarding the Stormwater Management Committee’s review. Although he likes the idea of the temporary road becoming a permanent road, he was concerned with the potential of speeding cars. He supported the idea of illuminating the road. Member Papp supported the proposed; however, he was unsettled with the idea of whether or not Mallot Drive should be a temporary or permanent road.

Member Kocan stated there is not enough information. The Ad-Hoc Committee information was not provided to the Commission. There is not a way to determine whether or not the road would impact the Rouge River or Meadowbrook Lake, which has considerable sedimentation and erosion. The people of the Orchard Hills Subdivision feel that there would be an extensive amount of traffic coming through their subdivision without the permanent road. She questioned if they considered the amount of additional traffic that would start to come through their subdivision with the addition of this road. People will use the road to get to Orchard Hills School. She stated that although it might be taking away from residents closer to Borchart and Woodland Creek, there would be more traffic on Silvery Lane, Sycamore Drive and Borchart where people are not used to having traffic. She did not want construction traffic through a subdivision where children are walking to school. She had hoped the School District would have allowed a temporary road for construction. She stated the road that is there now was not there five years ago. She did not believe the City Staff adequately addressed the permanent road verses a temporary road verses no road because they assume the permanent road is going in. The permanent road was approved, however, it expired. Therefore, there is a new opportunity to review the situation. The discussion of the permanent road was a major point. In her opinion the matter was not discussed enough at the Planning Commission and City Council tables in 1998 and 1999. Today, three-years later she requested more information and for the Staff to comment on all studies that were done two or three years ago and update the information. She questioned if input could be obtained from the Storm Water Committee because she felt it would be beneficial. She did not have any intention of holding up the project; however, she found these issues to be critical. She was not convinced that a permanent versus having the traffic through the subdivision was the best option. She asked why the Wetlands Conservation Easement does not border Meadowbrook Lake subdivision all the way on the north/south border. She explained that it goes due west and cuts up and then goes down. She asked if that was because of the way the lot is split at this time.

Rick Hearth of Warner Cantrell Padmos stated the light colored lines represent the sanitary and storm sewers. The City does not desire conservation easements over these utility easements.

Member Kocan recalled the review letter from the former landscape Architect, Linda Lemke, indicated that trees need to be saved within 50-feet of construction, which she believed was incorrect. She asked if the correct distance was 15-feet of construction. She did not want to have trees cleared out 50-feet from construction therefore, this error should be corrected.

Ms. McGuire believed Ms. Lemke was referring to tagging the trees within 50-feet of the construction area. She concurred that the trees are removed within 15-feet of the construction.

Member Kocan stated discussion of the 3-½ versus 4-½ foot berm on the west. One site plan shows this requirement and another does not. There is discussion of a five to six-foot wall versus the berm and no decision was made as to whether the wall would remain with the berm placed next to it. Therefore, this issue needs to be addressed. If there are stop no signs on Mallot Drive, there should be more. She recommended additional speed limit signs on Mallot Drive. The DEQ expiration is 2003 and has specific yearly monitoring requirements. Since the letter is almost 5-years old. She stated the monitoring should be two consecutive years and every other year for eight years. She did not want it to be monitored once. She asked if the depth of Lots 8 to 18 takes into consideration the berm and the wall and the fact that the berm is required to be on the residential property. She wanted to be sure there was enough depth for those houses. There is no berm between lots 1 and 8 on the school property where there is definitely a parking lot. There are two existing trailer buildings. Member Kocan felt buffering should be provided at this location. Although she was not certain of the final housing elevations, she noted the 30 to 40 foot difference between the highest elevation on the property and where it will drain into the Rouge River, stream and Meadowbrook Lake. Member Kocan indicated that she would not support the proposed with a permanent road. She wanted to know the impacts upstream. She explained that changes made to the middle impacts what is going north and south, east and west and up and down stream.

Member Sprague asked if the Storm Water Management Ordinance applies to the proposed.

Ms. McClain indicated when the project was submitted in January it fell under the old Storm Water Ordinance, however because it does not have Tentative Preliminary Plat Approval it falls in the gray area.

Chairperson Nagy indicated that it expired.

Ms. McClain clarified that she was referring to the interim policy.

Member Sprague asked if it is the intent of the owner to comply with the 100-year Storm Water Ordinance.

Mr. Lewiston indicated that he would comply with the ordinances by which he is bound. He indicated that to his knowledge, there are no published rules and regulations to abide by.

Member Sprague noted the assumption that the building of the road would solve the safety problem. He questioned if the traffic flow was determined and if it would alleviate the issues being discussed.

Ms. McClain indicated that people would typically take the closest access. Therefore, she anticipated that most of the residents of the new subdivision will utilize Mallot Drive, however it would be out of the way for those residing at the edge of the existing subdivision. She described the possible scenarios of the traffic routes.

Member Sprague asked if she felt the safety issues were addressed with the provision of the road.

Ms. McClain indicated that her comments did not pertain to the construction traffic. The safety issue is the children walking in the streets without sidewalks. The solution to addressing this issue would be to enclose the storm sewers and provide sidewalks, however this solution would have to be done by the residents because it is an existing condition. The sidewalks would not necessarily have a greater impact because it is all residential traffic that would continue to flow there. A new road would invite other vehicles to cut through and different areas of the neighborhood will experience more traffic. As a result there will be a shift in traffic and it may or may not alleviate the concerns of safety with the children. The new subdivision will have sidewalks for the children and the safety issue will be alleviated in that area.

Member Sprague asked if it is prohibited to upgrade roads in an existing subdivision as opposed to building new roads.

Ms. McClain indicated that it is considered an off-site improvement. She was not certain that the impact from the traffic would warrant a need to upgrade all of the roads. The residents could consider a SAD to enclose their sidewalks and sanitary sewer. Alternatively, she noted that depending upon the state of the road it could be covered in a future Road Bond year, however, she would need to look into the matter to be certain.

Member Sprague asked if the possibility of obtaining temporary access from the School District was revisited with the new submittal.

Mr. Lewiston indicated the problems with obtaining the access were related to more than the cost. Additionally, the topography of the school site is hilly. The point at which the road would intersect into Ten Mile Road left a 30-foot site distance. Therefore, having school children in close proximity to passing trucks was also an issue. The School Superintendent completely disagreed with the option.

Chairperson Nagy announced that according to the By-Laws and Rules of Procedure a motion is a necessary to continue the meeting as the time 11:36 pm.

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Markham, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To extend the Planning Commission meeting until 1:00 am

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Chairperson Nagy stated that her concerns were related to the location in the Middle Rouge. She was not clear with the information pertaining to the "flow in" and "flow out" of the water. She was concerned with the Wetland Consultant’s review letter of February 2002, which stated, "the temporary discharge pretreated stormwater into the wetland system temporary impact amount unknown" and indicated that the disturbance in the wetland buffer is an unknown quantity for road crossings and gradings. She did not believe the Ad-hoc ever recommended a permanent road. Instead, she interpreted the minutes were pertaining to the placement of temporary access. She was not comfortable with the road or the splitting of the area in half regardless of there being a temporary or permanent road. She stated the Stormwater Management & Watershed Stewardship Committee should review the information because it is the Middle Rouge. She found the permanent road dangerous. Chairperson Nagy agreed with the audience participant’s comment in that there is a third solution. The third solution would be to remove the area at the west, designated as light green, and develop fewer lots. The construction of fewer lots would eliminate the need to have the entire road constructed. She referenced the letter which stated, "The proposed flood plain fill has been reduced from 5,275 cubic yard to 2,274 cubic yards…" She calculated 463 trucks of fill. She questioned how long a temporary access road would endure these conditions. She indicated that she walked the subdivision and felt the construction traffic would hurt the conditions of the existing subdivision. She felt the matter should be tabled because adequate information was not provided, particularly related to environmental impacts. Chairperson Nagy acknowledged Mr. Lewiston’s comments that the information was provided, however she indicated that the information was not provided to the Commission. She recalled that all of the minutes indicated flooding occurrences in the existing Orchard Hills Subdivision. She did not feel sufficient information was provided to make an educated decision regarding the proposed site. She advised the applicant to explore the option to reduce the number of homes. She understood the Developer’s right to develop the land, however, the City also has the right to impose its rules. She felt the City should weigh its interests as much as the property owner. She appreciated the work and effort of the Developer. She felt the Commission should be privy to all the information necessary to make an educated decision. Chairperson Nagy suggested that the Commission table the issue.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Paul, CARRIED (6-3): In the matter of Orchard Hills West SP94-09 to table the matter in order to provide the Planning Commission with additional relevant updated information regarding the development as a whole, looking at the reduction of the number of homes and looking at the permanent road versus temporary construction road verses no new road, as well as with the stipulation that the Public Hearing will be continued to allow resident input after receipt of the new data.

Yes: Kocan, Nagy, Papp, Paul, Shroyer, Sprague

No: Avdoulos, Markham, Ruyle

Chairperson Nagy stated the public hearing would be handled with the same procedure. She stated the Planning Department needs the appropriate time to gather the requested information prior to the matter returning to the Commission.

Consideration of the request of Raymond Galper for a one-year final site plan and special land use extension. The subject property is located in Section 24, west of Haggerty Road and north of Grand River Avenue. The developer proposed a 17,451 square foot building in the I-1 (Light Industrial) District. The subject property is 2.97 acres.

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Sprague, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Novi Technology Center Building SP00-19 (fka00-18A) to grant a one-year Final Site Plan extension and one-year Special Land Use extension.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Chairperson Nagy asked if there were any specific preferences.

Ms. McBeth stated the Council did not indicate any particular dates, however, she request two or three possible dates that the Commission is available to meet. The dates would be forwarded to Council and considered at the August 26^th Council meeting. Consideration is being given to the months of September or October.

Member Shroyer requested that the joint meeting remain consistent with the Monday/Wednesday schedule.

Member Markham suggested the Monday or Wednesday at the end of October because both the Commission and the Council do not have scheduled meetings. Therefore, she suggested October 28^th or October 30^th.

Member Avdoulos suggested October 23^rd or October 28^th.

Chairperson Nagy stated the Commission would send to the Council the three dates: October 23^rd, October 28^th and October 30^th.

Ms. McBeth stated traditionally, the Commission has made recommendations too for items to be included on that agenda.

Chairperson Nagy requested that the item be placed under Matters for Discussion for the September 11, 2002 meeting.

Member Kocan stated she heard mention of items that were being sent to the Planning Commission from the City Council, however, no information was provided regarding these items. She noted specifically, the request from Councilmember Capello. She stated it is important to obtain feedback from the Council as to their expectations because there is a task for the Master Planning and Zoning Committee.

Chairperson Nagy disagreed. She recalled that it was the Implementation Committee. Further, Councilmember Capello’s request was placed further down on the prioritized list.

Member Kocan stated there are two issues. One, Councilmember Capello’s request to review setbacks. Second, the Master Planning and Zoning Committee has two months to respond to the City Council’s approval of the first reading of mixed-use development ordinance.

Mr. Evancoe interjected and stated the matter is coming before the Planning Commission. The City Council desires to revisit the second reading in 60-days from their approval. It is optional to the Commission as to whether or not the body would like to re-review the reading. It has been tentatively placed on the future agenda, however the Department will meet with the Chair to determine its placement.

None

None

Moved by Paul, seconded by Shroyer, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 12:18 a.m.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

________________________________

Donna Howe - Planning Assistant

Transcribed by: Christine Otsuji

September 13, 2002

Date Approved: September 25, 2002