| View Agenda for this meeting NOVI PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING Proceedings had before the NOVI PLANNING COMMISSION, taken before me, Maureen A. Haran, CSR-3606, a Notary Public, within and for the County of Oakland, State of Michigan, at 45175 W. Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, on Wednesday, February 26, 2003. 14 PRESENT: 15 Chairperson: Antonia Nagy Commission Members: John Avdoulos, Lynn Kocan, 16 Larry Papp, David Ruyle, Tim Shroyer. 17 ALSO PRESENT: 18 Planning Director: David A. Evancoe 19 City Attorney: Thomas R. Schultz Planners: Timothy R. Schmitt, Barbara McBeth 20 City Engineer: Benjamin Croy, Michael McGinnis. 21 REPORTED BY: 22 Maureen A. Haran, CSR 3606 23 24
11 CALL TO ORDER; 12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I'd like to open 13 the Planning Commission meeting for February 26, 14 2003. 15 ROLL CALL: 16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If we could please 17 call the roll, Ms. McBeth. 18 MS. McBETH: Thank you, Madam Chair. 19 Member Avdoulos. 20 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Here. 21 MS. McBETH: Member Kocan. 22 MEMBER KOCAN: Here. 23 MS. McBETH: Member Markham. 24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Absent/excused. 3
1 MS. McBETH: Chairperson Nagy. 2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Present. 3 MS. McBETH: Member Papp? 4 MEMBER PAPP: Here. 5 MS. McBETH: Member Paul? 6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Absent/excused. 7 MS. McBETH: Member Ruyle. 8 MEMBER RUYLE: Here. 9 MS. McBETH: Member Shroyer. 10 MEMBER SHROYER: Here. 11 MS. McBETH: And Member Sprague. 12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Absent/excused. 13 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Papp, if you 15 could lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. 16 (The Pledge of Allegiance was 17 recited by all present.) 18 APPROVAL OF AGENDA: 19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have any 20 additions and/or deletions with regard to the 21 Agenda? 22 MEMBER RUYLE: Move for approval. 23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is there a second? 24 MEMBER PAPP: Second. 4
1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I just wanted to, 2 before we move on, I received a letter from Mr. and 3 Mrs. Bond on Wixom Road. Did all the Planning 4 Commission receive that letter or was it just me? 5 (No affirmative response.) 6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Can I add this 7 under the Matters of Discussion? 8 MR. SCHULTZ: Sure. 9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I'm sorry, Matters 10 for Consideration. I would like to add Alan and 11 Kathleen Bond's letter dated February 19, 2003. 12 MEMBER RUYLE: Move for approval as 13 amended. 14 MEMBER PAPP: Second. 15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: All in favor say 16 aye. 17 ALL MEMBERS: Aye. 18 AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION: 19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: At this point we're 20 at our first Audience Participation. If there is 21 anyone in the audience that would like to address the 22 Commission on anything other than the Public Hearings 23 this evening, please come forward. 24 Seeing no one, I will close the first 5
1 Audience Participation and move onto correspondence. 2 CORRESPONDENCE: 3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Madam Secretary, do 4 we have any correspondence? 5 MEMBER KOCAN: Nothing other than 6 Public Hearing notices. 7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. 8 COMMUNICATIONS/COMMITTEE REPORTS: 9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have any 10 Communications and/or Committee Reports? 11 MEMBER KOCAN: Just to state that 12 there are a number of committee meetings being held 13 and, as you know, there is something on the Agenda 14 tonight for the Budget Committee, and hopefully we'll 15 be able to get to that at a reasonable hour. 16 The Rules Committee, as Mr. Shroyer 17 stated at the last meeting, we're in the process of 18 rewriting the rules and we're getting near the end of 19 that. And there's also the Implementation Committee 20 that is working on the day care ordinance right now. 21 So we're still conducting lots of meetings. Thank 22 you. 23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. 24 6
1 PRESENTATIONS: 2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Are there any 3 presentations? Mr. Evancoe. 4 MR. EVANCOE. Yes, Madam Chair, thank 5 you. Good evening to all. 6 I wanted to just bring to your 7 attention some materials that I received in the mail 8 yesterday that I think might be of interest to the 9 Planning Commission. I'd like to actually pass a few 10 of these out. 11 We have six commissioners. Pass one 12 of these down to each, if we could. 13 What this is is some training that 14 looks like it might be excellent for the Planning 15 Commission, especially for perhaps our newer 16 members. This is a program that is being put on by 17 the Michigan Society of Planning, and they are doing 18 a conference called Planning Basics, which is 19 training for new officials, and it's being held 20 throughout the state. And what Oakland County 21 Planning and Economic Development Services has done 22 is basically been able to get almost a private 23 program for themselves due to the number of 24 commissioners and officials within the county. 7
1 So this is an event that's held on 2 Saturday, April 5. It's at a reduced cost compared 3 to the other sessions, identical sessions being held
4 throughout the state, and I just wanted to provide 5 that and if anyone is interested, just let us know at 6 the Planning Department, and we will get you signed 7 up and make that happen. Thank you. 8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very 9 much. 10 CONSENT AGENDA - REMOVALS AND APPROVAL: 11 1. Novaplex SP99-32 12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Moving onto the Consent 13 Agenda, are there any removals? 14 Madam Secretary. 15 MEMBER KOCAN: I have a question for 16 the City attorney. 17 Mr. Schultz, I noticed in this that 18 this is an extension of the Final Site Plan, and 19 typically we have had extensions of the Preliminary 20 Site Plans, which our ordinance allows three such 21 extensions. This is a Final Site Plan extension, 22 which already received a Preliminary Site Plan 23 extension. Is it three total extensions, period, or 24 are they allowed three for Preliminary and three for 8
1 Final? 2 MR. SCHULTZ: Give me a quick second 3 and I'll take a look at our Extension section. 4 MEMBER KOCAN: Thank you, because I 5 think that that may make a difference. 6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think that is a 7 question that everyone has been asking. 8 MR. SCHULTZ: Madam Chair, if I may. 9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, Mr. Schultz. 10 MR. SCHULTZ: The reference in 11 Section 7 to Extensions says, the time limit set 12 forth in sub part 2516.6(a) above, which is a 13 reference to Approvals for Both Preliminary and Final 14 Site Plan, indicates that they can be extended one 15 year. 16 So it would be three extensions, 17 whether it's Preliminary or Final, total for both.
18 So I guess I can't speak to how many were on for this 19 parcel. 20 MEMBER RUYLE: We didn't ask that 21 question. 22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think it said in 23 our packet. 24 MR. EVANCOE: If I recall, I think it 9
1 said there has been one extension granted so far. 2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Two. There was one 3 granted for a one-year Preliminary Site Plan on 4 September 5, and then a Final Site Plan extension was 5 granted administratively -- oh, without approval. 6 I'm sorry. That approval was granted for the Final 7 Site Plan on March 22, 2002. 8 MR. SCHULTZ: So they've had two. 9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: They've had two. 10 Can you do that? 11 MR. SCHULTZ: Reading this in the 12 most conservative way -- and let me make sure the 13 Commission is clear on this. This is ultimately an 14 ordinance that you're going to be interpreting. You 15 asked me for our opinion, but ultimately you apply 16 this section. 17 If you want to read it conservatively 18 to say three total, and they've already had two but 19 those were Preliminary, they would get one extension 20 of this Final Site Plan. 21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. 22 MR. SCHULTZ: A conservative reading 23 of this, you could also read it to say -- a more 24 generous reading, you could say three for Preliminary 10
1 and three for Final, but that really becomes your 2 issue and I think either is defensible. 3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Well, since we're 4 not interpreting, we're just- 5 MR. SCHULTZ: We're still under 6 three. 7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We're still under 8 three. 9 So, does anyone move to approve the 10 Consent Agenda? 11 Yes, Mr. Ruyle. 12 MEMBER RUYLE: I'll move to grant the 13 extension for one year with the direction given to 14 the Planning Department that they are to notify this 15 Applicant that this is it. This is the final third, 16 and they either act on it within the next year, or it 17 goes back to Stage 1. 18 MEMBER SHROYER: I support that. 19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Supported by 20 Mr. Shroyer. 21 Mr. Evancoe. 22 MR. EVANCOE: I just have a question. 23 I apologize if I'm not tracking well this evening, 24 but I'm wondering where we're finding the 11
1 interpretation that there have been two extensions 2 granted so far. I see on the second to last bullet 3 that there was a one-year Preliminary Site Plan 4 extension, but not any others. 5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Well, maybe that 6 was an error in reading this. 7 MR. EVANCOE: It's not terribly 8 important, but I think we just need to perhaps know 9 that we're not up against -- you know, I think we've 10 only granted one so far. 11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. 12 MEMBER RUYLE: I would still iterate 13 that you call them, let them know what our feelings 14 are. 15 MR. EVANCOE: I will. Thank you. 16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. Does the 17 maker of the motion then amend it to just let them 18 know how many extensions they have? 19 MEMBER RUYLE: Correct. Yes. I'll 20 accept that. 21 MEMBER SHROYER: I'll accept. 22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. With no 23 further discussion, if you would call the roll, 24 please, Ms. McBeth. 12
1 MS. McBETH: Thank you, Madam Chair. 2 Commissioner Kocan. 3 MEMBER KOCAN: Yes. 4 MS. McBETH: Chairman Nagy. 5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes. 6 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Papp. 7 MEMBER PAPP: Yes. 8 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Ruyle. 9 MEMBER RUYLE: Yes. 10 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Shroyer. 11 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 12 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Avdoulos. 13 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Yes. 14 MS. McBETH: Motion passes 6 to 0. 15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. 16 PUBLIC HEARINGS 17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Moving on in the 18 Agenda we have Public Hearings. 19 The first Public Hearing is the Public 20 Hearing to amend Section 201 of the City of Novi 21 Ordinance Number 97-18, as amended, the City of Novi 22 Zoning Ordinance, to add to the definition of home 23 occupation a limitation on the placement of signs 24 visible through window areas suggesting or implying 13
1 the existence of a home occupation. 2 Ms. McBeth. 3 MEMBER RUYLE: Madam Chair? 4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, Mr. Ruyle. 5 MEMBER RUYLE: Clarification for the 6 City attorney. 7 I own a home business. I don't 8 advertise it, but I do business out of my home. 9 MR. SCHULTZ: I don't see a conflict. 10 MEMBER RUYLE: Okay. Thank you. 11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Ms. McBeth. 12 MS. McBETH: Thank you, Madam Chair. 13 If the Commission wouldn't mind, I 14 would like to discuss all four of the proposed
15 amendments relating to signs all at once, and then 16 allow the Commission to go ahead and hold the four 17 Public Hearings if that is the Commission's 18 preference. 19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think that will 20 be fine. 21 MS. McBETH: Thank you. The four 22 Public Hearings that are to follow are for changes to 23 the ordinances as they relate to signage. I'd like 24 to describe each of those ordinances briefly at this 14
1 point. The Planning Commission is asked to forward a 2 recommendation to City Council regarding these 3 ordinance changes. The ordinance changes were 4 initiated by the Neighborhood Services Department in 5 order to restrict or allow signage in specific 6 circumstances, and one ordinance is proposed to 7 establish a penalty for violation of the sign 8 ordinance. 9 The Implementation Committee discussed 10 these items just very briefly. The recommendation 11 was made to send these items to the full Commission 12 for consideration, and that recommendation to City 13 Council. 14 The first proposed ordinance amendment 15 is to the Zoning Ordinance and that would change the 16 definition of home occupation. The new ordinance 17 language would prohibit signage within the windows of 18 a home occupation that would be visible from outside 19 the home and that would advertise the home 20 occupation. 21 The second proposed amendment is to 22 change the Sign Ordinance and that would establish 23 standards for signage for garage sales. The new 24 ordinance language would limit the maximum area and 15
1 height of garage sale signs and would also place a 2 limit on the number of garage sale signs that are 3 allowed, the location of the signs, and would place a 4 maximum period of time that the signs may be 5 displayed. 6 The third ordinance change to be 7 considered by the Planning Commission this evening is 8 also to the Sign Ordinance. And that would establish 9 a penalty for violation of the Sign Ordinance. It 10 states that any person, firm, or corporation 11 determined to have been in violation of the Sign 12 Ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Anyone 13 convicted of this infraction, may be subjected to a 14 fine or imprisonment, or both, as provided in the 15 section of the City Code that was also provided in 16 the Planning Commission packet this evening. 17 Finally, that fourth request relates 18 to a specific regulation for locating signage along 19 Twelve Mile Road. The ordinance currently states 20 that signage must be set back 78 feet from the center 21 line of Twelve Mile Road. Because of the recent 22 widening of Twelve Mile Road, the Neighborhood 23 Services Department sees the need to increase that 24 required setback from the center line from 78 to 93 16
1 feet. The 93 feet would allow the placement of signs 2 three feet off the right-of-way, and that would be 3 consistent with the location regulations for signs in 4 other zoning districts. 5 So to conclude, the Planning 6 Commission is asked to hold four separate Public 7 Hearings on these ordinance changes, and forward the 8 recommendation to City Council. If there are any 9 additional questions, the Planning Department would 10 be happy to answer, as well as Cindy Uglow who is 11 here. She's the Neighborhood Services manager. 12 She's present this evening. Thank you. 13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you,
14 Ms. McBeth. 15 These are Public Hearings. Would 16 anyone like to address the Commission on any of the 17 items for the Public Hearings regarding the ordinance
18 text amendments? 19 (There was no response from the 20 audience.) 21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If there is no 22 one, I will turn this over to the Commission. 23 Member Shroyer. 24 MEMBER SHROYER: I was, first of all, 17
1 going to ask even though we held a Public Hearing for 2 all, can we as a Planning Commission discuss each one 3 separately? 4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think that would 5 make sense. 6 1. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 99-18.175 7 MEMBER SHROYER: I think so too. And part 8 of the reason I say that is I have no problem with 9 the first one. So if we could discuss that or if a 10 discussion is necessary. If not, I'll move that we 11 accept it as written. 12 MEMBER RUYLE: Second. 13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. It has been 14 moved and seconded that the Zoning Ordinance Text 15 Amendment 99-18.175 be amended as written. 16 MR. SCHULTZ: Recommended to Council. 17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I'm sorry. We 18 recommend to Council that it be accepted as written. 19 Member Kocan, would you have any 20 comments? 21 MEMBER KOCAN: I just wanted to add: 22 For the following reasons: That the reasons for 23 accepting this is because the ordinance revision 24 clarifies that there shall be no signage for home 18
1 occupations, and I believe that that was the intent 2 of the Neighborhood Services and the City, to take 3 out any loopholes that there were. 4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Any further 5 comments? 6 (There were no further comments 7 from the Commission members.) 8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If not, Ms. McBeth, 9 would you please call the roll. 10 MS. McBETH: Thank you. 11 Chairperson Nagy. 12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes. 13 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Papp. 14 COMMISSIONER PAPP: Yes. 15 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Ruyle. 16 MEMBER RUYLE: Yes. 17 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Shroyer. 18 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 19 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Avdoulos. 20 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Yes. 21 MS. McBETH: And Commissioner Kocan. 22 MEMBER KOCAN: Yes. 23 MS. McBETH: Motion passes 6 to 0. 24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. 19
1 2. Sign Ordinance Text Amendment 99-18-176 2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Going onto Sign 3 Ordinance Text Amendment 99-18.176, and that is to 4 amend Chapter 28, Signs, of the City of Novi Code of 5 Ordinances, to add requirements for temporary garage 6 sale signs. 7 Do we have any comments on that from 8 any Commissioners? 9 Mr. Shroyer. 10 MEMBER SHROYER: This one I do have 11 questions on. First of all, the entire packet 12 indicates that it was reviewed by the Implementation 13 Committee, but I don't see a recommendation from the 14 Implementation Committee in the packet. 15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Madam Secretary, if 16 you would like to answer that? 17 MEMBER KOCAN: I'd like to speak to 18 that. 19 The Implementation Committee, it does 20 state that we reviewed it, however we actually did 21 not review each one. We did not have the language at 22 the meeting, and I did send a note to the staff 23 saying -- as information and as a disclaimer -- the 24 Implementation Committee did not review the actual 20
1 ordinance changes, but followed the attorney's and 2 the City staff recommendation that these would be 3 simple changes and they would go directly to the 4 Planning Commission. 5 But I have some changes that you'll 6 hear also. So we did not -- we approved them to come 7 forward in ideology. 8 MEMBER SHROYER: I have further 9 questions and, Mr. Evancoe, should these be addressed 10 to you or Ms. Uglow? 11 MR. EVANCOE: Probably not to me, but 12 I would say Ms. Uglow or Barbara McBeth. 13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think you should 14 ask Ms. Uglow to step forward. 15 MEMBER SHROYER: Come on down. 16 State your name and spell it for our 17 reporter, please. 18 MS. UGLOW: Good evening. Cindy 19 Uglow, Neighborhood Services Coordinator, U-g-l-o-w. 20 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you. Several 21 questions. And the reason for this is our 22 subdivision is very, very, active with garage sales, 23 and if I didn't ask some questions I'd be burned at 24 the stake or something. 21
1 First of all, I note that things are 2 supposed to be bolded in our copy for the changes 3 made. I'm trying to have -- I'm having difficulty 4 figuring out exactly what changes were made. Are 5 there specific sentences? 6 MS. UGLOW: I thought we added a 7 cross-out. 8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: It was crossed out. 9 MR. SCHULTZ: This is new. The whole 10 thing. 11 MEMBER SHROYER: It's all new? 12 MR. SCHULTZ: The whole thing. 13 MEMBER SHROYER: So it all should have 14 been bolded. 15 MS. UGLOW: All. 16 MEMBER SHROYER: Well, some of the 17 questions I have then, and I almost hate to get
18 picky- 19 MS. UGLOW: Go ahead. 20 MEMBER SHROYER: Any time something 21 is in written form, you're looking at an ordinance, 22 or whatever, that is enforceable. And when we say 23 things such as "Maximum permit duration or exception, 24 between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m," are we saying 22
1 that the people have to put up their signs every day 2 and take them down every night? 3 MS. UGLOW: We would prefer that. 4 MEMBER SHROYER: It doesn't say 5 prefer. 6 MS. UGLOW: Well, we don't like 7 clutter- 8 MEMBER SHROYER: I understand. 9 MS. UGLOW: -and that's the object of 10 this specifically is the clutter and sight 11 obstruction. So we're going to be flexible, and I 12 know there's additional comments as far as the 13 times. 14 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. And the 15 second comment I have is the concern about the 10 16 feet from the traveled portion of the street or road. 17 For a garage sale sign in the front 18 yard that's easily accomplished, but a garage sale 19 sign at a corner or major intersection trying to 20 direct traffic, to put it 10 feet away from the road, 21 nobody's going to see it. 22 MS. UGLOW: They do see them and if 23 there's a number more than one or two, I would 24 request that you think about election time where one 23
1 can be at 10 feet, then the next one who wants to be 2 more visible will be at eight, and then six, and all 3 of a sudden you're at gravel. 4 MEMBER SHROYER: I understand. 5 MS. UGLOW: So we're more conscious, 6 the ordinance officers are more conscious of sight 7 obstruction and clutter than getting the stick-out, 8 which we do have, but we're a little more flexible on 9 the footage. 10 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. 11 MS. UGLOW: We needed an area to start 12 from. 13 MEMBER SHROYER: Oh, sure. 14 MS. UGLOW: So we treated this as a 15 temporary sign. 16 MEMBER SHROYER: And I'm looking at 17 it from the practicality standpoint as opposed to- 18 MS. UGLOW: Sure. And I have to add 19 the majority of our residents and our citizens are 20 very good about it. And they have put them up at the 21 specific days and times that they feel that they're 22 running, and the majority of them remove them by 23 Sunday or Sunday evening when they're done. 24 MEMBER SHROYER: Some of them have 24
1 been up there since 1999. 2 MS. UGLOW: Exactly, and we're 3 cleaning them up as we see them. Hopefully the snow 4 will melt and I'm sure there will be more. 5 MEMBER SHROYER: The third question I 6 have is does the language for the garage sales tie 7 directly into the third item in here, which makes it 8 a penalty of a misdemeanor and possible jail time? 9 MS. UGLOW: We hope not. 10 MEMBER SHROYER: Again, the verbiage 11 though. 12 MS. UGLOW: I know. I know what 13 you're getting at. We have a sense of let's choose 14 our battles. Garage sale signs, although we prefer 15 them to be the letter of the law, as all our 16 ordinances are, and for everyone -- we do not do 17 selective enforcement, but in some of the cases, 18 garage sales and community annual meetings, there's a 19 flexibility there that's probably not going to be 20 written. 21 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. That's all I 22 have on this item, and what I'll do is turn it over 23 to the rest of the Commissioners if they have any 24 questions for Ms. Uglow, and then if not she can sit 25
1 down and go forward. 2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very 3 much. 4 Mr. Ruyle. 5 MEMBER RUYLE: Thank you, Madam 6 Chair. 7 I'm a conservative but I'll use the 8 lawyer's term tonight, reading this thing most 9 liberally. This says between the hours of 9 a.m. and 10 5 p.m. prevailing time, it could be Eastern Daylight 11 or whatever, solely during the duration of the garage 12 or yard sale, no permit required. 13 That would tell me that I could put my 14 sign up, if I'm going to have the sale on Thursday, 15 and not take it down until I have the final sale on 16 Saturday, if I'm reading it liberally. 17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: No. 18 MEMBER RUYLE: So you say take it 19 down daily. 20 MR. UGLOW: Yes, sir. 21 MEMBER RUYLE: I think you should 22 spell that right out, that it has to come down and be 23 put back up. Because as I interpret it, and like I 24 said if I interpret it liberally, it would tell me 26
1 the duration of the sale, and the duration of the 2 sale is four days. 3 MS. UGLOW: I'll look to Tom for 4 that, to make it a little more clear. 5 MR. SCHULTZ: We can make that 6 clarification, sure. 7 MEMBER RUYLE: I think it should be, 8 because you're going to get that argument. 9 MS. UGLOW: Yes, sir. 10 MEMBER RUYLE: Just like you got 11 arguments before with political signs of when they 12 can go up and when they can't go up because of 13 election times. Basically that's what I wanted to 14 point out. I have no problem with it other than -- 15 if you want them down daily, just spell it out 16 daily. 17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Schultz, do you 18 have any comments? 19 MR. SCHULTZ: I would reverse the 20 order for -- a suggestion: Reverse the order of the 21 phrases then, and just say solely during the duration 22 of the garage and/or yard sale, and only between the 23 hours of 9 to 5 daily, hourly, whatever. 24 MEMBER RUYLE: I think the word daily 27
1 has got to be in there. I mean, there are several 2 lawyers in the audience and they'll all interpret it 3 the way they want to interpret it. Let's interpret 4 it the way we want it interpreted, which means daily. 5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. I think 6 that actually if you had this, it would read between
7 the hours of, let's say, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. And 8 only -- so it would read, and only between the hours 9 of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. 10 Read to me exactly what you want it to 11 say. 12 MR. SCHULTZ: Solely during the 13 duration of the garage and/or yard sale, comma, and 14 only between the hours of blank a.m. and blank p.m. 15 daily. 16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Daily. Okay. 17 Did you have any further comments, 18 Mr. Ruyle? 19 MEMBER RUYLE: No. That's -- I 20 wanted to bring that out. Thank you, Madam Chair. 21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Avdoulos. 22 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Can we add that the 23 signs be posted during these hours, have that 24 verbiage in there? Because when I first read it I 28
1 was reading that the garage sale could only be from 9 2 to 5, but it has nothing to do with taking down 3 signs, putting up signs, even though this is the Sign 4 Ordinance. 5 And the other question I had, if 6 there's no permit required, that we have maximum 7 permit duration or exemption, it sort of -- it erases 8 itself and it gets kind of confusing. There is no 9 permit fee required, but you have to still fill out 10 an application to get a permit. 11 MR. SCHULTZ: We're kind of stuck 12 with the fact that we're working with the chart here 13 in the ordinance. It's kind of hard to -- we could 14 put a footnote here and say no permit required but it 15 seemed easiest to put it under the column for permit 16 duration, that one isn't required. Because I don't 17 think we want to have applications for signs for all 18 of the garbage sales that occur during the summer. 19 I'll defer to Ms. Uglow on that. 20 MS. UGLOW: Okay. 21 MR. SCHULTZ: We don't really want to 22 do anything but regulate whether they're up or not. 23 MR. AVDOULOS: So the question is, you 24 don't need a permit to have a garage sale. 29
1 MR. SCHULTZ: No. 2 MR. AVDOULOS: Whereas other cities 3 you do. 4 MR. SCHULTZ: I don't believe we have 5 a permit for the garage sale. It just addresses the 6 signs. 7 MR. AVDOULOS: So if I want to have a 8 garage sale, I just need to know I can only have a 9 maximum of eight signs. 10 MS. UGLOW: Eight? 11 MR. AVDOULOS: It says eight garage 12 or yard sale signs -- I don't know what that eight 13 means, if that's the number eight. 14 MR. SCHULTZ: That's the eighth item 15 in the chart. 16 MR. AVDOULOS: That's where it gets 17 confusing, because I was reading under Height, 18 Placement and Number of Signs. One sign at the 19 residence, one additional sign may be placed at each 20 entranceway to the subdivision. So you could have 21 five entrances, so there's six. And then at 22 intersections within that subdivision to provide 23 directions to the garage and/or yard sale. So you 24 may have 12 intersections, so you may have 20 signs. 30
1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, you may. 2 MR. AVDOULOS: And that's where, you 3 know, when you look at this chart real quickly and if 4 that's what an Applicant picks up, then that's what 5 they can do. And I guess those were my questions. 6 MS. UGLOW: You'd be surprised the 7 directional -- you get them one at one entrance -- 8 I'm going to give the Meadowbrook Glens as an 9 example. You have the Ten Mile entrance, and you 10 have the Meadowbrook Road entrance. People find 11 their way. It's very rare that they hit every 12 intersection within the neighborhoods. So. 13 MR. AVDOULOS: No, I know. I'm just 14 looking at the zealous kids. And the reason I asked 15 about the permit is because my daughter and her 16 friend had a little garage sale in Northville, and a 17 police officer came by and said, Do you have a permit 18 for this? 19 MS. UGLOW: Really. 20 MR. AVDOULOS: And they did not, so 21 they had to close shop. 22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: But did you tell 23 them that you lived in Novi? 24 MR. AVDOULOS: But this was in 31
1 Northville. 2 MS. UGLOW: Aren't you glad you're in 3 Novi? 4 MR. AVDOULOS: I don't know. But that 5 was it. 6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Schultz. 7 MR. SCHULTZ: Is it clear now that the 8 number eight means this is the eighth item in the 9 chart, and it doesn't say eight signs? 10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes. You know, we 11 are slow. 12 MR. SCHULTZ: No, no. I wasn't sure 13 I caught the beginning of that comment. 14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Madam Chair -- I 15 mean Madam Secretary. 16 MEMBER KOCAN: I'm going to be the 17 Chair yet. 18 I just wanted to continue with what 19 Mr. Avdoulos said and what the attorney said because 20 I did get a copy of the Sign Ordinance being on the 21 Implementation Committee. I looked at it about 22 6 o'clock today, and this is in the middle of 23 something that's already been set and charted, and 24 there are other areas, specifically political signs, 32
1 that have the same verbiage that says no permit 2 required. So this is consistent with the other -- 3 with the chart that's in our Sign Ordinance. 4 However I do have some questions. 5 When I read through this the first time, in the 6 column under Height and Placement, the sentence that 7 begins: No more than one additional sign may be 8 placed. And when I read that, I took it very 9 literally and said no more than one additional sign. 10 And then it said, but you can put it here, here, 11 here, here and here. I'm wondering if it would be 12 easier to understand if it stated instead: 13 Additional signs, only one per location may be placed 14 at each entranceway, et cetera, et cetera, and at 15 intersections, et cetera, et cetera. I take things 16 very literally. When I read them, I implement them 17 the way that they're written. So that would be my 18 suggestion to change the verbiage there. 19 The other section has to do with the 20 maximum permit duration, and I'm wondering if instead 21 of putting: Solely during the duration of the garage 22 and/or yard sale-, is it necessary to even have that 23 verbiage and just have the times. If we say -- well, 24 if you had the maximum permit duration between the 33
1 hours of, whatever the hours are, no permit 2 required. Do we -- you're going to need additional 3 verbiage. 4 MR. SCHULTZ: I think the thought 5 was, we don't want: Garage sale coming next week, or 6 something like that. 7 MEMBER KOCAN: Okay. Then as long as 8 we insert the word daily, then I would agree with 9 that. 10 But the hours of 9 to 5, my concern 11 about that is while that might be an ideal time to 12 have signs out, it's not an ideal time to have 13 someone physically put the sign out if your garage 14 sale starts at 8 o'clock in the morning. If a spouse 15 is requesting another spouse to put it out on their 16 way to work, they could put it out by 7 a.m. 17 I would be much more amenable to 18 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. With daylight during the summer, 19 garage sales go longer. I would like to extend the 20 hours. 21 MR. PAPP: That would be the same as 22 construction is allowed, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. 23 MEMBER KOCAN: Construction is 7 to 7? 24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. I want to 34
1 make sure that that went on the record. So could you 2 repeat yourself, Mr. Papp? 3 MR. PAPP: Yes. Changing it from 4 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. would be in conjunction with the 5 ordinance of construction that we allow. 6 MS. UGLOW: Sure. That's fine. I 7 don't have any problem with that. 8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you for 9 clarifying, Mr. Papp. 10 Do we have anything else? 11 MR. PAPP: I have one other thing. 12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Papp. 13 MR. PAPP: Under Type of Structure, 14 should we list freestanding, so it's not attached to 15 a telephone pole or stop sign or a speed limit sign? 16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I would prefer to 17 have something myself. Because we have a beautiful 18 tree, gigantic tree, and people want to attach things 19 to it and it's an historical tree. 20 MR. PAPP: So Type of Structure 21 should be freestanding sign only, ground, pole or 22 portable sign. 23 MS. UGLOW: For the record, oh 24 absolutely not. No trees, no fences, no utility 35
1 poles, no traffic devices. Freestanding is fine. 2 MR. PAPP: Freestanding means it has 3 to be self-supported by wire. 4 MEMBER RUYLE: You can't put it over 5 a stop sign, huh? 6 MS. UGLOW: No. Please. 7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. Is there 8 anything else? 9 MR. PAPP: That's all. Thank you. 10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I would agree with 11 all the changes. The 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. I agree with 12 the signs being freestanding. I agree with the 13 purpose or the intent of this ordinance as well. I 14 think you've done a good job on the whole anyhow, 15 Ms. Uglow. 16 MS. UGLOW: Thank you, Chairperson. 17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If there is nothing 18 further -- Mr. Evancoe. 19 MR. EVANCOE: Thank you, Madam Chair. 20 If I may, I would like to make one additional 21 suggestion. Kind of going off of Commissioner 22 Avdoulos' comments. The last column, where it says 23 Maximum Permit Duration or Exemption, perhaps that 24 could be renamed as Duration of Sign Posting. 36
1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Well, it really 2 doesn't matter to me what we call it, because what -- 3 Maximum Permit Duration or Exemption, you're right, 4 if there's no permit required. 5 Mr. Schultz, do you have an opinion on 6 that? 7 MR. SCHULTZ: I have no objection to 8 it. It's the pleasure of the Commission. It's clear 9 enough either way. 10 MEMBER KOCAN: I would just say 11 because it's a column heading, as long as that 12 applies to every single permit. If that verbiage 13 applies to everything, then I don't have a problem 14 with it. 15 MS. UGLOW: Whatever your pleasure. 16 I don't have any problem with that either. 17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: That's what you 18 have -- excuse me, I don't mean to interject. 19 That's what you have, Maximum Permit 20 Duration or Exemption for campaign signs and signs 21 such as that, that's how the column is headed? 22 MS. UGLOW: Uh-huh. 23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Well, for 24 consistency sake, I think we should keep it the way 37
1 it is then. 2 MR. SCHULTZ: Just as a practical 3 matter, how it would be accomplished is we would 4 reprint the entire chart when it went from here on to 5 Council, and we would say for 1 through 7, unchanged, 6 but we would change the heading for the whole chart 7 along with these changes. So it can be accomplished. 8 It's at the pleasure of the Commission. 9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Shroyer. 10 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, 11 Madam Chair. 12 I still have concerns. When we 13 started talking about the $500, the 90 days 14 imprisonment, a hearing, trying to identify who owns 15 the sign. I mean, the address is going to be right 16 on the sign as to where the garage or yard sale is. 17 You pretty much know whose it is. 18 Even though I think 1, 3 and 4 are 19 great, I have no problem at all. This one, I'd feel 20 much better if there's no time requirement -- maybe I 21 need to ask that. Do we have to get this to Council 22 ASAP? 23 MS. UGLOW: I would prefer. These 24 are -- go ahead, Tom. 38
1 MR. SCHULTZ: Just a clarification. 2 I think as I understand it, you're kind of skipping 3 -- if I may, Madam Chair. 4 You're kind of skipping ahead to the 5 next sign that talks a little bit about the penalty. 6 Right now, the Sign Ordinance as a general 7 proposition, is a misdemeanor violation. Every 8 ordinance has to have a penalty that goes along with 9 the violation. 10 We're not yet to the point of bringing 11 to City Council a civil infraction, which would 12 change a lot of these misdemeanors. Sign Ordinance, 13 Zoning Ordinance violations, even for really small 14 things, are technically misdemeanors. I think 15 Council will be considering whether we should make 16 those civil infractions, but that's not going to be 17 for a while. 18 In the meantime, you've got all these 19 other elements of the Sign Ordinance which are really 20 already misdemeanor violations. The 90 days, the 21 $500, that's all in there. We're just kind of 22 clearing up the language a little bit to make it 23 consistent with what it ought to say to accomplish 24 what it accomplishes now. So we're not changing the 39
1 criminal aspect of it. And adding the garage sale 2 signs, I think Cindy can probably speak to the level 3 of enforcement we'll get there. 4 MS. UGLOW: I don't think we've ever 5 written a ticket for a garage sale sign. I mean, we 6 haven't written a ticket for a political sign. 7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And we should. 8 MS. UGLOW: I mean, we can talk all 9 night for our temporary signage, and some of those -- 10 I mean, the difference is, they have to register with 11 the clerk's office. 12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: There are a few 13 still out there. 14 MS. UGLOW: Please tell us where. We 15 try to get to all of them. God, I hope not. But 16 like Tom says, this is tweaking tonight. This is 17 tweaking a little bit of the verbiage. 18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. Do you have 19 anything else, Mr. Shroyer? 20 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes, I do. 21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Please continue. 22 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you. 23 As I said, I'm uncomfortable with this 24 but if there is a time situation where we do need to 40
1 move forward on it, I can support it. I would like 2 to see some type of verbiage added regarding 3 neighborhood association signage. I know it's been 4 verbally discussed. 5 MS. UGLOW: We were talking about 6 that. 7 MEMBER SHROYER: But the large 8 sandwich sign, or whatever you want to call them 9 should be exempt from some of this, because the whole 10 association is doing a garage sale at that time. 11 MS. UGLOW: As I had mentioned, we're 12 taking a look at the whole Sign Ordinance itself. 13 I'll be coming forward, or at least giving the 14 Implementation Committee a heads-up as to where else 15 we need to be looking within this ordinance. 16 Signs -- it's a big ordinance. This is just the 17 beginning of what, hopefully, the Committee will have 18 a chance to review. 19 As far as the penalties and things 20 like that, we can move on to that. But if you're 21 okay with that, spring's coming. There's a lot of 22 garage sales going on. The sooner we get that, if 23 it's your pleasure to tweak it a little bit more 24 later, I have no problem with that, but at least 41
1 we'll have something on the books. 2 MEMBER SHROYER: Will there be any 3 problem at a later date coming back and making 4 additional changes or whatever? 5 MR. SCHULTZ: Sure. That will be 6 fine. 7 MEMBER SHROYER: Because maybe when 8 Ms. Uglow comes to the Implementation Committee with 9 additional items, if there's still concerns that need 10 to be addressed on this one, we can move forward on 11 that. 12 MS. UGLOW: Absolutely. Sure. It 13 would be my pleasure. 14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have 15 anything, else Mr. Shroyer? 16 MEMBER SHROYER: No. Thank you. 17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have any 18 other comments from anyone else? 19 Yes, Madam Secretary. 20 MEMBER KOCAN: Madam Chair, I'll make 21 a motion in the matter of the request of Sign 22 Ordinance Text Amendment Ordinance, 99-18.176, to add 23 requirements for temporary garage sale signs, motion 24 to recommend approval to City Council of the proposed 42
1 revised ordinance language as discussed at the table 2 for the following reasons: To establish standards 3 for garage and yard sale signs -- and I guess I can 4 list some specifics: Changing the times to 7 a.m. to 5 7 p.m., adding the word daily, adding the type of 6 structure to be freestanding, and to clarify the 7 additional signs at the specific locations. 8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is there a second? 9 MR. PAPP: I'll second it. 10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Motion was seconded 11 by Mr. Papp. 12 Is there any further discussion? 13 Mr. Schultz. 14 MR. SCHULTZ: I really hate to do 15 this, but the last item -- I just want to make sure 16 we're all clear on what we're changing. And I think 17 we're talking about the additional signs. If we 18 could have that language from Member Kocan. 19 MEMBER KOCAN: My proposal was to 20 state: Additional signs, only one per location, may 21 be placed at each entranceway. 22 And then leave the rest of the 23 verbiage as it was there. 24 MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you. 43
1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. So you're 2 adding: Additional signs, only one per location. 3 MEMBER KOCAN: It's going to replace 4 -- it's going to be the beginning of the third 5 sentence. Instead of: No more than one additional 6 sign. 7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. So you want 8 it to read: Additional signs, only one per location, 9 may be placed at each entranceway to subdivision 10 within which the garage and/or yard sale is being 11 conducted. 12 MEMBER KOCAN: Correct. And at 13 intersections, et cetera. 14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Well, right. I was 15 reading that first. 16 MEMBER KOCAN: Correct. 17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Does anyone else 18 have any further discussion on this? 19 (There was no further discussion 20 by Commission members.) 21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Seeing no one, if 22 we could please call the roll, Ms. McBeth. 23 MS. McBETH: Thank you. 24 Commissioner Papp. 44
1 MEMBER PAPP: Yes. 2 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Ruyle. 3 MEMBER RUYLE: Yes. 4 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Shroyer. 5 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 6 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Avdoulos. 7 MR. AVDOULOS: Yes. 8 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Kocan. 9 MEMBER KOCAN: Yes. 10 MS. McBETH: And Chairman Nagy. 11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes. 12 MS. McBETH: Motion passes 6 to 0. 13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very 14 much. 15 3. Sign Ordinance Text Amendment 99-18.177 16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Continuing on with 17 the third Public Hearing, which is the Public Hearing 18 to amend Chapter 28, Signs, of the City of Novi Code 19 of Ordinances to implement a misdemeanor penalty. 20 Do we have any further discussion on 21 this? 22 Member Kocan. 23 MEMBER KOCAN: Thank you, Madam 24 Chair. 45
1 I've even got a handout because I'm 2 changing the paragraph, and I thought it might be 3 easier for the Commission members to read what I've 4 written, instead of me just trying to state it. 5 Part (c) of the ordinance was very 6 confusing to me, and I want to be sure that it says 7 what I think you want it to say. So I've proposed 8 some changes. 9 Ms. Uglow, did you get a copy of my 10 handout? 11 MS. UGLOW: No. 12 MEMBER KOCAN: Please pass that. 13 I have no problem with the beginning 14 of Part (c) because it's talking about remedies. 15 Where it seems to me to get muddied, is when you're 16 starting to try to identify the owner, and what we 17 need to do or what process happens. So my proposal 18 is that Part (c) should read: 19 In addition to the remedies otherwise provided, 20 the City may remove an unlawful sign on public 21 property in accordance with the following 22 procedures. 23 No change to that sentence. No change 24 to the next sentence: 46
1 Unlawful signs on public property may be removed 2 by the City. 3 The next sentence, I do have some 4 changes: "If an owner may be determined-," because 5 we use determined in the next sentence and it just 6 didn't read real clearly to me, I would propose that 7 we change it to: 8 If an owner can be identified from an inspection 9 of the sign removed, the City shall attempt to 10 notify the owner of the sign. That upon the 11 request of- 12 Instead of such person, I would 13 propose to say: 14 -upon the request of the sign owner, the 15 Neighborhood Services Coordinator, or his or her 16 designee, will conduct a hearing at which- 17 Instead of "-the person," I would say: 18 -the sign owner may contest the propriety of the 19 removal of the sign. 20 The last sentence, I changed around 21 and I'm hoping that this reads a little bit more 22 clearly. 23 If the sign is not retrieved and a hearing is 24 not requested within five days after notice to 47
1 the sign owner, comma, or if the owner of a sign 2 cannot be identified through reasonable effort, 3 comma, the sign shall be treated as abandoned 4 and be discarded. 5 I want to identify, instead of saying 6 such person and person, I want to identify who's the 7 sign owner and who's the City, and who's the 8 designee, and who's holding the hearing. I also 9 wanted -- I did change the words "-the sign may be 10 treated as abandoned-," I changed it to "-shall be 11 treated-," and I want to know if that's your intent. 12 Are you more comfortable with "-may be 13 treated as abandoned-," or shall we say "-it shall be 14 treated as abandoned-"? 15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Excuse me. I want 16 to ask a question of Attorney Schultz. Is this the 17 same -- this paragraph right here. Will this be the 18 same paragraph in the political signs? 19 MR. SCHULTZ: It's different than 20 that. 21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes? 22 MR. SCHULTZ: It's different. 23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: It's different? 24 MR. SCHULTZ: It's different. 48
1 Political signs are dealt with separately. 2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: The reason I ask 3 the question is, some of the verbiage is shall and 4 may, so I wanted to make sure. 5 Any further comments? 6 MEMBER KOCAN: Ms. Uglow, do you have 7 any- 8 MS. UGLOW: (Interposing) Well, if 9 you're going to -- let me give the example of the 10 garage sale. I mean those are definite. You can 11 identify those. I mean, their address is on there, 12 like you said. 13 I have a concern of where to keep 14 these signs for five days. I mean, in any given time 15 on a Monday, you can go to three pick-ups in the City 16 parking lot, and the beds are full. I mean, between 17 people putting the signs -- you have people that 18 aren't even in the City of Novi. I mean, get away 19 from the garage sale, get away from For Sale by 20 Owner, the homes for sale, but you have others 21 advertising. Northville Homes, the Pulte Homes. 22 They're at Beck and Ten. I mean, there's got to be 23 two dozen there every weekend. We try to address 24 them. 49
1 And I applaud your effort on this, but 2 I don't want to give that much leeway. 3 MEMBER KOCAN: Then my question is, 4 it was not your intent to say, "If the sign is not 5 retrieved within five days-," you didn't want to 6 state that? 7 MS. UGLOW: We have them at a certain 8 place at the DPW lot. Commissioner Ruyle can attest 9 to this. Not specifically for garage sales, we tend 10 right now to leave those alone until Monday. If 11 they're not picked up, we pick them up and dump them 12 because we know there's no more garage sale. 13 Political signs are kept in a separate 14 bin. If we're called on them, and they want to 15 know -- they're given an instruction sheet when they 16 register with the City during election time. We give 17 them a copy of the Sign Ordinance, and those signs 18 are kept separate. 19 MEMBER KOCAN: I'm trying to 20 understand what it is you want to say, and that's why 21 I wrote it the way I wrote it. 22 Let me go back. If we go to the 23 original document that you gave us, the last 24 sentence -- because I originally wrote it one way. 50
1 If the owner of a sign cannot be determined by 2 reasonable effort, comma, or if a sign is not 3 retrieved- 4 I was going to put a comma there, and 5 then say: 6 -or if a hearing is not requested within five 7 days after notice to such person who would be 8 the sign owner. 9 They're two different things, but when 10 I reread it, I thought you wanted to give people five 11 days from the time you notify them that they can come 12 get their sign. If that's not what you want, I don't 13 want to put those words into the ordinance. So 14 you've got to tell me what you want to say. 15 MS. UGLOW: That's okay, the five 16 days. I have a concern with a hearing for every 17 sign. 18 MEMBER KOCAN: But that's what you've 19 stated. That's your original proposal: If you can 20 identify the owner, the City will notify the owner, 21 and upon the request of such person- 22 MS. UGLOW: (Interposing) I guess 23 we've never been requested. 24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Everybody's got to 51
1 talk one at a time. 2 MS. UGLOW: I don't know. Tom? 3 MR. SCHULTZ: I think the original 4 intention of this amendment was to deal with signs 5 that weren't necessarily in the public right-of-way, 6 on public property. 7 Cindy, with your approval, why don't 8 we take another opportunity to take a look at this 9 and make sure that Cindy's needs are met here. I 10 don't know that we have to act on this one 11 immediately tonight. 12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: With all due 13 respect, I think I understand the intent of your 14 paragraph. That last sentence, if you read it 15 slowly:
16 If the owner of a sign cannot be determined by 17 reasonable effort, comma, or if a sign is not 18 retrieved or a hearing requested within five 19 days after notice of such person, the sign may 20 be treated as abandoned and be discarded. 21 She's saying all these three 22 possibilities. You know, if it's not retrieved, 23 there's no hearing, and you can't determine the 24 owner, then you can treat it as abandoned or 52
1 discarded. 2 Is that your intent? 3 MS. UGLOW: Uh-huh. That's fine. 4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You're trying to 5 give that person the option with their sign. 6 MS. UGLOW: Exactly. Although, and I 7 apologize, we've never held a hearing. We've 8 always -- either House for Sale signs, we've taken 9 them back to their homes and said you may not be 10 aware. Garage sale signs, on Monday morning they're 11 picked up, they're discarded. Political signs, 12 they're put separately. 13 So I appreciate that. I 14 misunderstood, sorry. 15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: With all due 16 respect, then I do think Member Kocan's verbiage is 17 somewhat clearer. Because if you state to a 18 person -- you just change the word: 19 If the sign is not retrieved or a hearing is not 20 requested within five days after notice to the 21 sign owner, comma, or if the owner of a sign 22 cannot be identified through reasonable effort, 23 comma, the sign shall be treated as abandoned 24 and be discarded. 53
1 I think you're both saying the same 2 thing in different verbiage. Don't you, Mr. Schultz? 3 MR. SCHULTZ: I think so, and it might 4 help -- Mr. Evancoe pointed this out, if we put the 5 word "may" before the phrase "be discarded," so the 6 City isn't obligated somehow to throw it away. 7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. So: 8 -the sign may be treated as abandoned and may 9 be discarded. 10 MS. UGLOW: That's fine. 11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Are you okay with 12 that, Member Kocan? 13 MS. UGLOW: That's fine. Perfect. 14 MEMBER KOCAN: That's fine. 15 MS. UGLOW: Thank you very much. 16 MEMBER KOCAN: What you did is you 17 changed the word "and." 18 If the sign is not retrieved, comma, or the 19 hearing is not requested. 20 MS. UGLOW: Perfect. Thank you very 21 much for that. 22 MEMBER KOCAN: The only other 23 question I had, had to do with in one paragraph, 24 you're stating it's a public nuisance, and two 54
1 paragraphs later it's a misdemeanor. 2 MR. SCHULTZ: They're intended to be 3 complementary. The public nuisance has to do with 4 whether we can get a judge to enjoin a particular 5 sign. It's going to be a misdemeanor violation in 6 any case, regardless of whether that finding is made. 7 They complement each other. 8 MEMBER KOCAN: Okay, but when they're 9 separated by a paragraph, to me it seems like 10 there's- 11 MR. SCHULTZ: It's the same thing in 12 the Zoning Ordinance, everything is declared to be 13 both a nuisance and a misdemeanor. 14 MEMBER KOCAN: I have nothing else. 15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Member Papp. 16 MEMBER PAPP: Do you pick up a lot of 17 the Pulte signs, John Richard signs, every Monday? 18 MS. UGLOW: Well, we try to get an 19 officer to work on Saturdays and catch them, and at 20 least give them a verbal warning. We have written 21 tickets, haven't we. 22 MR. PAPP: So you do write tickets 23 against the signs that are left out that you're 24 picking up? 55
1 MS. UGLOW: I'm sorry? 2 MR. PAPP: You do write tickets for 3 the Pulte signs- 4 MS. UGLOW: Oh, no. Sorry. Those we 5 just discarded. All directional signs as to the 6 developments or the builders cannot be at those 7 locations, like Ten and Beck. No. 8 MR. PAPP: So they're in violation of 9 this ordinance. 10 MS. UGLOW: Yes, sir. 11 MR. PAPP: Would we not write them a 12 ticket? 13 MS. UGLOW: If I saw the person -- if 14 the officer witnessed the person installing that into 15 the ground, they may write them a ticket, yes, sir. 16 MR. PAPP: But you can't write it to 17 Pulte- 18 MS. UGLOW: (Interposing) You cannot. 19 Normally, they hire people to do that. And you're
20 not going specifically to the owner. It's just- 21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: (Interposing) It's 22 very complicated. 23 MS. UGLOW: It's very simple to just 24 remove them. It's cost effective for us and cost 56
1 impaired to them. 2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have any 3 further comments? 4 (There were no further comments 5 from the Commission members.) 6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If not, the Chair 7 will entertain a motion. 8 Member Kocan. 9 MEMBER KOCAN: In the matter of the 10 request for Sign Ordinance Text Amendment 99-18.177 11 to implement a misdemeanor penalty, motion to 12 recommend approval to City Council of the proposed 13 ordinance language, subject to subsection (c) to read 14 as recommended by Member Kocan in her handout, 15 changing the word "and" to "or." And also adding the 16 word "may" before "be discarded." 17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have a 18 second? 19 MEMBER RUYLE: Second. 20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Seconded by 21 Mr. Ruyle. 22 Any further discussion? 23 (There was no further discussion 24 by Commission members.) 57
1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Seeing none, 2 Ms. McBeth, if could you please call the roll. 3 MS. McBETH: Thank you. 4 Commissioner Ruyle. 5 MEMBER RUYLE: Yes. 6 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Shroyer. 7 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 8 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Avdoulos. 9 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Yes. 10 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Kocan. 11 MEMBER KOCAN: Yes. 12 MS. McBETH: Chairperson Nagy. 13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes. 14 MS. McBETH: And Commissioner Papp. 15 MEMBER PAPP: Yes. 16 MS. McBETH: Motion passes 6 to 0. 17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. 18 4. Sign Ordinance Text Amendment 99-19.178 19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And moving onto the 20 last public hearing regarding the ordinances is a 21 Public Hearing to amend Chapter 28, Signs, of the 22 City of Novi Code of Ordinances, Section 28-6(2)A.3 23 to change the setback regulations applicable to 24 Twelve Mile Road to reflect the widening of the 58
1 roadway. 2 Do we have any discussion? 3 Mr. Shroyer. 4 MEMBER SHROYER: I'd be happy to make 5 a motion. 6 In the matter of request for Sign 7 Ordinance Text Amendment 99-18.178, to amend Section 8 28-6(2)A.3, to change the setback regulations 9 applicable to Twelve Mile Road to reflect the 10 widening of the roadway, motion to recommend approval 11 of the proposed ordinance language, subject to the 12 following modifications -- basically there's none -- 13 and for the following reasons: that with the widening 14 of Twelve Mile Road, it is necessary to change the 15 setback. 16 MEMBER RUYLE: Second. 17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: The motion has 18 been made, and seconded by Mr. Ruyle. 19 If there is no further discussion- 20 MR. PAPP: Should that be forwarded to 21 City Council -- recommend to forward that to City 22 Council? 23 MEMBER SHROYER: I didn't say that. 24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Did you say 59
1 recommended? 2 MR. SHROYER: No. I just said 3 recommend approval. 4 Recommended to City Council -- 5 forwarded to City Council for approval. 6 MEMBER RUYLE: I'll second it. 7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. 8 If you could call the roll, 9 Ms. McBeth. 10 MS. McBETH: Thank you. 11 Commissioner Shroyer. 12 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 13 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Avdoulos. 14 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 15 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Kocan. 16 MEMBER KOCAN: Yes. 17 MS. McBETH: Chairperson Nagy. 18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes. 19 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Papp. 20 MEMBER PAPP: Yes. 21 MS. McBETH: And Commissioner Ruyle. 22 MEMBER RUYLE: Yes. 23 MS. McBETH: Motion passes 6 to 0. 24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very 60
1 much. 2 MS. UGLOW: Thank you all very much. 3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: The Commission 4 will take a ten-minute break before we continue on 5 with the next Public Hearing. 6 (A brief recess was taken.) 7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I'd like to call 8 the meeting back to back to order. 9 5. Asbury Park Estates, Site Plan Number 01-82 10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: The next item on 11 our Agenda is the Public Hearing at the request of 12 Joe Rokicsak for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan 13 and Wetlands Permit. The subject property is located 14 in Section 16 on the north side of Eleven Mile Road 15 between Taft and Beck Roads. The developer proposes 16 a 45-unit condominium development under the 17 Subdivision Open Space Option in the R-1, One Family 18 Residential, District. The subject property is 19 approximately 53 acres. 20 Ms. McBeth? 21 MS. McBETH: Thank you, Madam Chair. 22 I'll put an aerial photo up here that 23 locates the property for us. 24 We are on the north side of Eleven 61
1 Mile Road, and this is Beck Road here. The property 2 is outlined here in blue. It's currently undeveloped 3 land. The property to the west is developed with 4 Central Park Estates, which fronts on Beck Road and 5 there are some single family homes on the west that 6 front on Eleven Mile Road. 7 To the north of the site -- I'll zoom 8 out a little bit so you can see Grand River on the 9 Plan. To the north of the site are industrial uses 10 and vacant land that front on Grand River. To the 11 east are single family homes fronting on Eleven Mile 12 Road. To the south, across Eleven Mile Road, are 13 Abbey Hills, Lochmoor Village, and Walden Woods 14 subdivisions, and there's also single family homes 15 that front on Eleven Mile Road. 16 I'll show you the Master Plan, and the 17 property is outlined in blue, in this area here. The 18 Master Plan for land use recommends single family 19 uses for the site, and for the properties to the 20 south, to the southwest, and to the east. To the 21 northwest, the Master Plan recommends multiple family 22 uses. To the north, the Master Plan recommends 23 office uses. To the northeast, the Master Plan 24 recommends light industrial uses. 62
1 I'll show you the zoning map next. 2 The subject property that we're looking at, again 3 outlined in blue, is zoned R-1, One Family 4 Residential. To the west, the zoning is RA, 5 Residential Acreage, and RM-1, Low Density Multiple 6 Family. To the north, the zoning is I-1, Light 7 Industrial. To the east the zoning is RA, 8 Residential Acreage. And to the south, the zoning is 9 RA and R-1, One Family Residential. 10 We had a request to see the City's 11 wetlands map, and that's been provided to each 12 Commissioner at the table this evening, and it's 13 displayed up here, which shows generally where the 14 wetlands are located. These are not precise, they 15 haven't been verified out in the field, but the 16 general locations of the wetlands are outlined in 17 blue. The site, is this case, is outlined in 18 yellow. 19 So there's large areas of wetlands on 20 the site. There are wetlands to the north, the 21 industrial property that fronts on Grand River, and a 22 little finger of wetlands that appears to exist to 23 the north on this side, and also to the northeast at 24 that location. 63
1 Again, I want to say that those have 2 not been verified out in the field, that is simply 3 from the City's wetland maps overlaid on the City's 4 aerial photos. 5 This is a small version of the Site 6 Plan in front of you here. The proposed Site Plan 7 shows 45 units of detached site condominiums proposed 8 to be viewed under the Open Space Subdivision 9 Residential Option section of the ordinance. 10 This submitted Plan conforms 11 substantially to the conceptual Plan that was 12 reviewed by the Planning Commission on August 7, 2002 13 and approved by City Council on September 9, 2002. 14 The Plan before the Commission this evening shows the 15 same road configuration with the road system looping 16 north from Eleven Mile Road and connecting back to 17 Eleven Mile Road again. The entrance on the west 18 side, is aligned with Lochmoor Drive to the south, 19 and the entrance on the east side is located near 20 their east property line. 21 The proposed Plan provides the same 22 number of lots as the conceptual Plan that was 23 reviewed by the Commission and Council, that's 45 24 lots, and provides the comparable amount of open 64
1 space. 2 One issue of concern previously was 3 the location of wetlands within the boundaries of 4 three of the platted lots. On the Plans before us 5 this evening, the wetlands were removed from the lots 6 with one exception. There is a small area of 7 mitigated wetlands located on what is called Lot 12. 8 This is going to be mentioned again during the 9 Wetlands Review. 10 The following is a summary of the 11 important issues for the Planning Commission to 12 consider this evening. The Planning Review indicated 13 that there are two Zoning Board of Appeals variances 14 and three findings the Planning Commission may wish 15 to make. One variance is for the active recreation 16 area on this Plan that is located right about here, 17 and that area is slightly less than the two acres 18 required by ordinance. In subsequent discussions 19 with the Applicant, we believe that the full two 20 acres can be provided with minor modifications to the 21 Plan. However, a Zoning Board of Appeals variance 22 will be required to allow the location of the active 23 recreation area on the perimeter of the site. 24 One issue the Planning Commission has 65
1 jurisdiction over is the approval of the location of 2 open space on the site. Under the section of the 3 ordinance that we're reviewing this Plan under, open 4 space is required to be located in one of two 5 manners: the open space must either directly border a 6 majority of the lots in the subdivision, or it must 7 be located so that a minimum of 25 percent of the 8 open space perimeter borders the subdivision street. 9 I'm going to point out the open spaces 10 that do not seem to comply with these requirements. 11 Open Space Number 1, the active recreation area. 12 Open Space Number 2, Open Space Number 8, and Open 13 Space Number 9, do not meet these requirements. 14 Open Space 1, again, is that active 15 recreation area. Open Space 2 is a wooded wetland 16 proposed to be left in its natural state, and Open 17 Spaces 8 and 9, are small uPland areas located within 18 the larger central wetland on the property. 19 The ordinance does allow the Planning 20 Commission to modify the Open Space location 21 requirements, where the regulated woodlands or 22 wetlands exit on the site. 23 A second issue for the Planning 24 Commission to consider this evening is whether Open 66
1 Spaces Numbers 7, 8 and 9 meet the intent of the 2 section of the ordinance. This section requires 3 access to all of the Open Space areas. Again 8 and 9 4 are in the center of the site and may be difficult to 5 access. Open Space Number 7 is located here, 6 adjacent to Unit 12, and that Open Space consists of 7 a sedimentation basin. 8 Typically, retention basins shall not 9 be considered as part of any Open Space. I would 10 like to point out to the Commission that even if 11 these three Open Spaces are eliminated from the 12 calculations, the Applicant will still have provided 13 in excess of the four acres of Open Spaces required. 14 And finally, under the Planning 15 Department Review, the Planning Commission may wish 16 to make a determination whether the proposed 17 recreational facilities meet the intent of the active 18 recreation requirement of this ordinance. 19 The Plan Review Center requested that 20 the Director of Parks & Recreation provide us some 21 input on this requirement, and you will find that he 22 has written a memo that is included in the back of 23 the packet, that comments on the proposed activities 24 within this active recreation area. 67
1 The Wetlands Review indicated that a 2 Wetlands Permit is recommended subject to a City 3 Council waiver for the proposed wetland mitigation 4 area within the boundary of Lot 12. Again, located 5 right about here on the Plan. This is an area where 6 a wetland mitigation and a sedimentation basin are 7 proposed. 8 During extensive discussions with the 9 Applicant on this matter, it's believed that the 10 issue of the small area of wetland mitigation on 11 Lot 12 may be resolved with further modification to 12 the Plans, since the Applicant has proposed much more 13 wetland mitigation than is required by City and state 14 requirements. 15 Dr. Don Tilton, the City's wetlands 16 consultant is here this evening if the Commission has 17 any questions about the Wetland Review. 18 The Woodlands Review indicates that a 19 Woodlands Permit is recommended with minor notes and 20 changes to the Final Site Plan. 21 The Landscaping Review indicated that 22 a Planning Commission waiver is needed in order to 23 allow the use of the existing woodlands near the west 24 entrance instead of the required berm at that 68
1 location. 2 The Traffic Review indicated that a 3 City Council waiver is needed for lack of access 4 stubs every 1300 feet around the periphery of the 5 site. The Applicant has provided an access stub on 6 right-of-way area on the east side of the site. The 7 traffic engineer is asking that the next Plan 8 submitted show the actual street stubs to be 9 constructed at the outset of development within this 10 right-of-way. 11 Another access point will connect to 12 the north to the industrial property that goes out to 13 Grand River. Adjacent to the west side of the site 14 is Central Park Estates development, and there is 15 also a protected wetlands in this area associated 16 with the development, making access to that area 17 difficult. 18 The Engineering Review indicated that 19 the site does meet the requirements and that 20 modifications will be required at the time of Final 21 Site Plan Review. And finally the fire marshal 22 recommends approval of the Plans subject to all of 23 the proposed fire hydrants being shown on the next 24 submittal. 69
1 Thank you, Madam Chair. That 2 concludes my presentation. 3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very 4 much. 5 Would the Applicant like to address 6 the Commission? 7 Mr. Quinn. 8 MR. QUINN: Yes. Good evening, Madam 9 Chairperson, ladies and gentlemen. Matthew Quinn 10 appearing on behalf of Asbury Park Estates. 11 This evening I have with me 12 Larry Swistak, the developer of the property/owner; 13 Claudio Rossi, the builder of the property; 14 Rick Hirth, the engineer. So between myself and 15 them, we will be able to answer any questions that 16 you may have. 17 It is good to see all of you again. 18 We started this project well over -- just like in a 19 deposition, right? We started this project well over 20 a year ago, and we were here as was stated August 7 21 of last year, and you granted conceptual approval 22 recommendation to the City Council. And then we went 23 to the City Council, presented this conceptual Plan 24 to them, and they also gave it their blessing. 70
1 Thereafter, the staff of this 2 development took all the comments. The comments that 3 this Planning Commission made, the comments that the 4 City Council made, and made a significant amount of 5 revisions to the Plan. There was, and I can show you 6 here on this map, initially all these red areas were 7 intrusions onto lot areas. You had comments about 8 those; those are all gone. A lot of work was done to 9 revise the whole Plan. 10 And this, as you recall, this is a 11 very difficult site. Of 53 acres, almost 20 are 12 wetlands in the center. So it's a difficult site to 13 work with, but with creative engineering and site 14 layout, we now have the same number, 45 lots. All of 15 these lot, first of all, meet the requirements of the 16 R-1 District by lot size and by lot widths, what have 17 you. There are now no lots that are contained in any 18 wetland area. As was stated, the one lot right down 19 in this corner, that's going to be removed so that's 20 not even anything that we're asking for. So that's a 21 variance that is gone. 22 Also, what we are considering here is 23 the fact that the active area, there was a request 24 mentioned of a need for a variance -- I'm sorry, 71
1 Madam Chairman? 2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, if you could 3 clarify before you go on, is the actual Lot Number 12 4 going to be removed? 5 MR. QUINN: No, no. The wetland 6 intrusion within the lot line has been removed. 7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. 8 MR. QUINN: So the lot line now is 9 totally self-contained without any wetland intrusion. 10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. 11 MR. QUINN: All right. You're going 12 to end up here with a very beautiful subdivision of 13 houses in the 600,000 to $900,000 range. There has 14 been a lot of interest in this subdivision, and 15 coincidentally enough from the neighbors that live 16 across the street, that want to move up from their 17 current house to the new homes that will have a very 18 private-like setting, with this wetland in the 19 middle, with the active recreation areas and the 20 other areas for the families to enjoy. 21 The active recreation area is going to 22 be two acres. Again, we're not asking for any 23 waivers or variances for that. It is committed that 24 that will be two acres of active land. We've looked 72
1 at the Parks & Recreation director's letters as far 2 as what activities should be there. We do adopt the 3 asphalt pathway instead of the wood chips. It only 4 makes sense for maintenance purposes throughout the 5 years that the asphalt will be easier on the 6 homeowners to do. 7 That two acres is mostly going to be a
8 open, grassy, manicured area, so that you can have 9 active sports activities on them. The other 10 activities that are mentioned in the Plan will be 11 provided. 12 We agree with the director, that 13 perhaps those physical Phys Ed stations, the exercise 14 stations, aren't going to be used so why waste 15 everybody's time and money in the maintenance that's 16 involved. You know, as was stated by him, most 17 people these days if they want to exercise they own 18 everything in their basement to exercise on or they 19 go down to Bally's or one of the other facilities 20 these days. It's partly social, partly exercise. So 21 that, we can certainly meet. 22 Yes, we still will need the ZBA
23 variance for the location of the active area, since 24 it is on the boundary, but the rationale for that is 73
1 very simple. We are preserving a significant amount 2 of natural features on this property, and really, the 3 area where it is, is the only location that makes 4 sense. And there are accesses from both road 5 systems, the east and the west road system, by the 6 walkways to the active area so it certainly meets the 7 intention of being able to be accessed by the members 8 of the community. 9 The issue of the 7, 8 and 9 as was 10 mentioned, a determination by you that those are open 11 spaces. Again, that's an easy one because we really 12 don't need those. We're still in excess of the four 13 acres that's required, so that, in our position, is a 14 non decision. 15 As far as the Wetland Review is 16 concerned, we are preserving 96 percent of the 17 wetlands on-site. I'm not sure that any developer, 18 at least that I know, in the history of Novi has 19 preserved that much significant wetlands in a 20 project. We do have our MDEQ Permit. That has been 21 issued and provided to your staff today. That was, I 22 think, just received yesterday from the MDEQ's 23 office. So all of our activity in the wetlands has 24 been approved by them. This is, of course, under 74
1 their jurisdiction because it's in excess of five 2 acres. 3 As far as the Wetland Review letter. 4 There is a discussion in there of the placement of a 5 split rail fence along the wetland buffer area. 6 Discussions have taken place today on alternative 7 ways to resolve that. It really doesn't make sense 8 to wind a wooden fence through a heavily treed area, 9 because all of these backyards are mostly heavily 10 treed. During construction, you're going to have the 11 orange fencing within 15 feet of the house structure 12 to protect everything to the rear. So discussions 13 were held today just before the meeting with staff 14 that perhaps we do away with the split fence, but we 15 put up signage throughout that area, education for 16 everyone, so that they will know where the wetlands 17 buffers begin, and that's something we'll certainly 18 work out with the staff. 19 Also regarding a request that the 20 buffer areas be placed within the conservation 21 easement will cause some concern. Discussions again 22 were held today regarding the necessity of placing 23 Detroit Edison lines within the buffered area, 24 instead of taking down significant trees where those 75
1 Edison lines would normally go. So we think that, 2 again, is something we can work out with staff and 3 that that should not be a requirement of the Wetland 4 Review. 5 Also in the area of mitigation, there 6 was again a request in the Wetland Review letter that 7 the mitigation areas should have no more than one to 8 two feet of standing water in them, and that again 9 was something that was discussed with staff today 10 that will be worked out, because the whole idea here 11 is for the waters to flow into the wetland system in 12 the center. And those levels, as requested, will not
13 work, and that's something that the wetland people 14 and the engineers will be able to take care of. 15 On the Traffic Review, two things to 16 address. First of all, the request we will have to 17 City Council requesting a waiver for the requirement 18 of a stub to be on the east side of the street. The 19 issue is, this area to the east is already developed 20 as was shown on the overhead by the Central Park 21 Estates Multiple Family Development. It doesn't make 22 sense to have to put, really, a stub that goes 23 nowhere and probably will affect some area where 24 there is some water on the site. So that is 76
1 something that we think that Council will grant to us 2 and we will go to Council and request that variance. 3 As far as the required stub street to 4 the east, and that is right here, we did not show the 5 construction of the stub on purpose. First of all, 6 we will, if required, build it, but we think that 7 area should be left as an open area for now. We 8 would be willing to bond for the construction of that 9 stub street, but the chances are that that will never 10 be developed or ever be needed in the future, but 11 we're allowing a space for it. We will leave it 12 there. If it's required to be built, we will build 13 it, but there are trees that will have to be removed 14 and it may serve the subdivision better for now to 15 leave it in its natural state. 16 The landscape waiver we're asking you 17 for on the west entrance, as was stated there's 18 significant trees there that act as a buffer already 19 between the roadway and the homes on the west side, 20 and it doesn't make sense to tear trees down to build 21 a berm and then plant new trees on it. So as 22 recommended by staff, we concur in the request for 23 the Planning Commission waiver in that regard. 24 We think that with all of the 77
1 information that we provided, the changes that we 2 have put into this project with your help, we have a 3 great subdivision that will be a jewel in the City of 4 Novi. We think that the waivers that we're asking 5 you for are minimal in nature for the overall 6 development, and we would expect that the ZBA will 7 grant us our one waiver there, and the City Council 8 will grant us the one waiver that we request from 9 them. 10 We'll be more than happy to answer any 11 questions or concerns that you may have regarding any 12 comments that your staff made, and then any comments 13 that are in our presentation or comments that have 14 been made by myself. The engineers are ready to 15 answer any engineering questions. Claudio Rossi can 16 answer any questions about the homes that will be 17 constructed, or how the construction will work with 18 the protection of the woodlands and the wetlands as 19 those houses are constructed. 20 So thank you for your attention and we 21 look forward to a favorable resolution. 22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Is 23 there anyone further on your behalf that would like 24 to speak? 78
1 MR. QUINN: Not right now. 2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. This 3 is a Public Hearing. We have a Mr. Will Siembor who 4 would like to come forward. 5 Sir, if you would state your name, 6 spell your last name for the court reporter, and give 7 her your address. 8 MR. SIEMBOR: My name is Will Siembor. 9 That's S-i-e-m-b-o-r. My address is 46500 Eleven 10 Mile Road. 11 I have two common borders with the 12 proposed development, my east border and north 13 border. So actually, there's a map right here. So I 14 have the property right here in this corner. And 15 I've been a homeowner on Eleven Mile for 17 years 16 and have enjoyed the wild life and the wetlands all 17 that time, and knew someday it was going to be 18 developed, as well as across the street on Eleven 19 Mile with the developments there. 20 The only thing that -- I assumed this 21 was going to be developed, and I always watched over 22 that it would be developed responsibly. Whether it 23 was Walden Woods I, Walden Woods II, Asbury Park. 24 You know, we know development is going to take place, 79
1 we just want it to be done responsibly. 2 I've been working with the 3 developers. They've been communicating with me 4 regarding the Site Plan for over a year now, and I 5 really do believe the intention that they have, that 6 I have, that you have, is to save the wetlands as 7 much as possible, as well as to allow Novi to be 8 developed. And I really do believe this type of 9 development works very, very, well. 10 As far as a couple of the variances 11 that I saw listed on the hand-out regarding the open 12 space or active open space, the east entrance is 13 literally 500 yards from the school system. So 14 there's a running track, there's football fields, 15 there's baseball fields. So that somebody that wants 16 some activity, they can literally walk across the 17 street and within a quarter of mile be at a half 18 mile's worth of active open space. 19 And regarding the wetlands, as 20 Mr. Quinn had mentioned, 95 percent of the wetlands 21 are going to be saved. And that's the important 22 part. If five percent is used to allow a development 23 like this to take place, but to save 95 percent of 24 it, and to guarantee that nothing else will be 80
1 developed for our lifetime on that wetland, I think 2 that's a very, very, small price to pay. My concern 3 is if this Board here and the City Council does not 4 allow something like this to go through, who knows 5 what's going to happen in the next two or three years 6 with the next development that wants to do 7 something. 8 So I think the intent and purpose of 9 this development is in the spirit of what the City of 10 Novi wants. They want a reasonable tax base, nice 11 homes, as well as to have a nice mix of natural 12 settings for our citizens. So I'm absolutely in 13 favor of this development. 14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very 15 much for coming forward, sir. 16 Is there anyone else in the audience 17 that would like to address the Commission regarding 18 this Public Hearing? 19 (There was no response from the 20 audience.) 21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Seeing no one, I 22 will close -- I'm sorry, do we have correspondence, 23 Madam Secretary? 24 MEMBER KOCAN: I do. I have two 81
1 correspondences. The first one from Martin Gibbons, 2 25951 Abbey Drive, who objects to the development. 3 Stating with four subdivisions and another planned, 4 the Planning Commission just was overruled by City 5 Council in 2002, he feels Eleven Mile Road is already 6 overcrowded with traffic. The residential road is 7 being abused by speeding autos and semi trucks 8 cutting through. Also with the building of an Expo 9 at Grand River and Taft, this will only increase 10 vehicles and commercial truck travel on Eleven Mile 11 and Taft Road. 12 The second letter is from William 13 Dutka, D-u-t-k-a, 25906 Glenmore. It states that 14 this is the third time that he's received this letter 15 over the past two years. He's not in favor of the 16 development. He'll be cutting down mature trees in 17 the area. Construction will be complicated by the 18 Grand River closure. There will be building noise. 19 The roads will be muddy during construction. The 20 deer population will have to move out. Is there 21 going to be adequate electricity during the summer 22 months to run all the air conditioners? He's 23 concerned about water pressure that will be decreased 24 more than it is now. And the population density 82
1 after construction will add to traffic congestion in 2 the area, especially on Eleven Mile. 3 Those are the only two I have, 4 Madam Chair. 5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very 6 much. If there's no further communication, then I 7 will close the Public Hearing and turn this over to 8 the Commission. Who would like to start? 9 Mr. Shroyer. You have that guilty 10 look. 11 MEMBER SHROYER: Did I raise my hand? 12 Well, I guess somebody has to start, right? Okay. 13 MEMBER RUYLE: Are you ready to make 14 a motion? 15 MEMBER SHROYER: No, I'm not ready to 16 make a motion yet. I have some questions, and I 17 don't care who comes forward with this, Mr. Quinn or 18 Rossi. Somebody start out here, if you would. 19 MR. QUINN: All right. Sure. 20 MEMBER SHROYER: First of all, I do 21 applaud you and a lot of the changes that have been 22 made. Looking at the old Plan that we saw last year 23 and the new one, there's some changes that are 24 definitely to the plus. And it's obvious that you 83
1 have taken our comments and concerns into 2 consideration. 3 What you've done with the active 4 recreation area I think is a plus. Taking away the 5 intrusions upon all the wetlands is a major plus. I 6 do not -- there's always a "not" in there somewhere, 7 isn't there. I do not agree with the Open Spaces 7, 8 8 and 9, but evidently that's not going to make a 9 difference because you're still going to exceed the 10 open space. Those are the minor things. 11 But one of the things I do want to ask 12 about, and that is on the old Plan, Lot Number 30 was 13 an open space. Now in order to maintain 45 spots, it 14 appears that the area that you have now dedicated an 15 open area for the eastern stub street, you removed a 16 lot there and you moved it across the street and 17 filled it in on the Open Space. 18 Walking the property, I couldn't find 19 where that spot was. It's very difficult to find. 20 Is that a large flat like plateau? 21 MR. QUINN: Is that- 22 MEMBER SHROYER: Lot 30, yes. 23 MR. QUINN: Yes, and the engineer can 24 address that. That is an upland spot. It meets all 84
1 the legal requirements for a lot. Value of 200, 2 $250,000, that particular lot. There's already been 3 inquiries for that lot. So, yes, it's an extremely 4 important lot to this development. 5 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. And you've 6 mentioned a bond, and I wanted to talk to our 7 attorney about the bond for the stub street. Usually 8 or in the past, I know we've looked at the 9 developmental agreements. Is a bond appropriate for 10 something along that line? 11 MR. SCHULTZ: This is in connection 12 with the Council waiver? 13 MEMBER SHROYER: Eastern stub street 14 to be built in the future. 15 MR. SCHULTZ: Oh, yes. That's 16 something that typically the City has done under 17 appropriate circumstances, reviewed by engineering 18 and administratively. 19 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. Thank you. 20 The asphalt path going -- that's 21 replacing the wooden path. I would assume you are 22 going to build it to City standards for a bike path; 23 is that correct? 24 MR. QUINN: Whatever the City 85
1 requires in that regards. Is that right? (Referring 2 to Mr. Rossi.) 3 Yes. 4 MEMBER SHROYER: Well, the City 5 doesn't require internal on property. 6 MR. QUINN: But it only makes sense 7 because it will be accessed by children on bikes, 8 adults on bicycles. 9 MEMBER SHROYER: That was my comment, 10 for bicycling and roller blading, and even the 11 strollers people will be pushing around, all that 12 kind of stuff. 13 MR. QUINN: Yes. 14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Excuse me, 15 Mr. Shroyer. 16 Do you have a comment, Mr. Evancoe? 17 MR. EVANCOE: Madam Chair, I do have 18 one question, if I may. Thank you. 19 Commissioner Shroyer, are you speaking 20 of just the paths that access the parks within the 21 development, or the overall sidewalk system? 22 MEMBER SHROYER: I was, at this 23 point, only referring to the two connectors 24 connecting the two roads together for the active 86
1 recreational facility in the middle. 2 MR. EVANCOE: Okay. 3 MS. McCLAIN: I just wanted to get 4 clarification on the bike path. Do you mean the 5 width of eight feet, or do you mean the cross section 6 and the type of construction that it would be? 7 MEMBER SHROYER: Everything to make 8 sure that it supports what we need a bike path 9 normally to support. 10 MS. McCLAIN: Because we do have 11 both, sidewalk pedestrian paths and we have bike 12 paths, and I just wanted to make sure that we had 13 which one you were intending. 14 MEMBER SHROYER: My intent was to get 15 a verbal commitment, so to speak, that's it's going 16 to be built to the standards of the City's bike 17 paths. 18 MS. McCLAIN: Thank you. 19 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you. 20 I also want to ask, and maybe 21 Ms. McClain is the person who needs to answer this 22 too, I don't know yet. But regarding the berming at 23 the north end, I'm a little confused because one of 24 the Plans had indicated that the intent was to have 87
1 the people to the north put in the berm, and there's 2 already been an agreement made to do that. 3 MS. McCLAIN: I think Mr. Quinn can 4 best answer that. 5 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. Let's bring 6 Mr. Quinn forward. 7 MR. QUINN: Yes. This development is 8 putting the berm in on the adjacent property. 9 MEMBER SHROYER: So you have a 10 written agreement? 11 MR. QUINN: We're working to put an 12 easement together to allow that to happen. Because 13 we're working with them on some other easements for 14 sewer to come in and out of the property. So that's 15 all part of our program with the adjacent property. 16 MEMBER SHROYER: All right. And I 17 want to ask the City. Do we need to have a copy of- 18 MR. SCHULTZ: (Interposing) We'll 19 review all that. 20 MEMBER SHROYER: And we'll get that 21 prior to Final Site Plan; correct? 22 MR. SCHULTZ: Yes. 23 MEMBER SHROYER: On Open Space Number 24 2, which is kind of down in the southwest corner, are 88
1 there any plans for that, other than just leaving it 2 natural vegetation? 3 MR. QUINN: Just natural. 4 MEMBER SHROYER: Just natural, as is. 5 Okay. And from what I understand from our woodlands 6 person, that's some of our better trees on the site. 7 That's going to be preserved in that area, on Space 8 Area Number 2, southwest corner, behind Lots 1 and 2. 9 MS. GREHL: That area is really -- it 10 makes a nice screen, and the trees are really good in 11 that condition as well as on the upper northeast side 12 as well. 13 MEMBER SHROYER: Northeast side as 14 well. 15 MS. GREHL: Yes. That's why, I don't 16 know if I get to answer, but I kind of agree with 17 just the bonding for the stub street because it's 18 kind of nice up there. 19 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. Well, the 20 other question I wanted to ask you regarding that, is 21 is there a better section along that eastern border 22 that would be usable for a stub street entrance that 23 would not be as intrusive on good woodlands, or high 24 quality woodlands? 89
1 MS. GREHL: I couldn't recommend a 2 better one, really. They're all kind of comparable, 3 the whole eastern border. 4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Would you state 5 your name and spell it, please. 6 MS. GREHL: I'm sorry. Elaine Grehl, 7 G-r-e-h-l. 8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. 9 MEMBER SHROYER: In my notes, I wrote 10 down -- I didn't write it very well, but I wrote down 11 something about removal of Lot 37. And where is 12 Lot 37? I'm trying to- 13 MEMBER KOCAN: In the wetlands. 14 MEMBER SHROYER: Oh, okay. That's 15 why. The majority of that area, it appears, is right 16 on top of a small wetland, Lot 37, and -- where is 17 our wetland person? 18 There we go. Can you come forward 19 and address that, please. 20 Is that a major problem, where we 21 stand on that, et cetera, et cetera? 22 DR. TILTON: Good evening. 23 Dr. Donald Tilton, T-i-l-t-o-n. 501 Avis Drive, 24 Ann Arbor, Michigan. 90
1 This question relates to a small 2 forested wetland that is less than half an acre in 3 size in terms of total area. It's dominated by a 4 mixture of trees and shrubs, and the reason that 5 we're recommending this evening that it be considered 6 possible to be filled, is because if it were to be 7 preserved in its current condition, it would have a 8 road adjacent to it and a residential area adjacent 9 to it. And its functions would be significantly 10 impaired by the developments surrounding it, compared 11 to the locations where we can build a new wetland, 12 contiguous with a much larger complex, which is a lot 13 more diverse, considerably more wildlife use. 14 So while ordinarily we don't endorse 15 the filling of natural wetland systems regardless of 16 their size, in this particular case, because of its 17 proximity to development and the likelihood to have 18 its natural hydrology impaired if it were to be 19 preserved, we think it would be fine to go ahead and 20 fill it and move it somewhere else. 21 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. 22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Where would you 23 move it? 24 MR. TILTON: The wetland could be 91
1 moved to -- there are a couple of different locations 2 that are being proposed, all of them adjacent to the 3 larger wetland complex. And incidentally, they'll 4 all be new forested wetlands, so the same habitat 5 type that is going to be lost under this new 6 proposal, will be replaced by the developer in the 7 construction process. And there are several 8 locations. There are two up in here. There's one 9 back along this side adjacent to the forested area on 10 the adjacent property. There are also areas adjacent 11 to the forested complex right down in here. Another 12 forested one adjacent to the forested wetland on the 13 west side. 14 So there are a number of different 15 areas, all of which in my view, would replace and in 16 fact exceed the replacement of the wetland to be lost 17 under this current proposal. 18 MEMBER SHROYER: You've been working 19 with the Applicant to try to come up with something 20 for that? 21 MR. TILTON: Yes, indeed. We met 22 this evening. We've been talking. Of course 23 Mr. Croy and myself have been debating and working 24 out the need to meet the engineering requirements and 92
1 the sedimentation requirements, as well as build a 2 functional wetlands system. And this evening, I 3 think we're very close. It's just a question of -- 4 well, we've resolved it. It's just a question of 5 working out some details that can be taken care of 6 during the Final Site Plan Review process. 7 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you. 8 MR. TILTON: You're welcome. 9 MEMBER SHROYER: At this time, 10 Madam Chair, I have no further comments, but while 11 he's up there, if somebody else had questions you 12 might want to grab him. 13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. 14 Mr. Avdoulos? 15 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Thank you, 16 Madam Chair. 17 I think a lot of the questions that I 18 had were addressed by Commissioner Shroyer, and I was 19 happy to see that some of the variances that were 20 being requested are slowly being resolved. 21 Especially with the recreation area requirement of 22 two acres, that we were shy by about 1300 square 23 feet, and I think that a real small ranch house will 24 -- with all that property, I think we can find that. 93
1 I'm glad it's getting resolved. 2 The fact that the Applicant is working 3 responsibly to preserve as much of the wetland as 4 possible is commendable. The fact that they're also 5 working with some of the neighbors is a great thing 6 too. We always like to see some communication 7 there. 8 The question I had on a couple of 9 these lots was, I guess, to you Mr. Quinn and to the 10 builder, Mr. Rossi. The houses are going to range 11 from 600 to $900,000. Are each of the lots going to 12 be individually sold to builders, or is there one 13 builder that is going to do each lot? 14 MR. ROSSI: My name is Claudio Rossi 15 with Mirage Development. 16 There's probably going to be a group 17 of two, three builders possibly, in there. These are 18 going to be high end lots. Homes are going to range 19 600 to 900,000, so there will be a group of builders 20 that will be put together to come up with an upscale 21 product that everybody will conform to. So each 22 individual lot will be basically a custom lot. There 23 will be a Plat Plan designed for each individual lot, 24 and at that point in time it will be, you know, 94
1 submitted to the City for review. 2 MEMBER AVDOULOS: And will there be a 3 group -- I don't know if its going to be Asbury -- or 4 a group that controls the whole site so that it acts 5 as a condominium? 6 MR. ROSSI: Well, there would be an 7 association that would be set up. You know, it 8 probably would be under, you know, the Asbury Park 9 Condominium Association, but we would control that up 10 to such a point that enough homeowners had moved into 11 the project to, you know, dedicate that over to the 12 homeowners. 13 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Okay. The concern 14 I had was for, say, like a Lot 45. That sounds like 15 a pork chop lot, it narrows out to the south. And my 16 concern is that somebody trying to put up a home 17 there, needs to come in for any kind of setback 18 variances or requirements. 19 I don't know what the actual 20 dimensions of those are and what it fits. The 21 description indicated that most or all of the houses 22 were going to be side entry garages. 23 MR. ROSSI: Correct. 24 MEMBER AVDOULOS: And I was just 95
1 looking at the maneuverability of that one, and then 2 some of the corner lots, 23, 24, 25, 26. I want to 3 make sure that if we're looking at a 5,000 square 4 foot house, if you were able to get 2,500 square foot 5 footprint on the lot, if that's been studied at all. 6 MR. ROSSI: Correct. We have studied 7 those lots, and obviously there will be quite a bit 8 of customization for this whole project, although 9 models are proposed to be built by the builders. 10 Most of the plans that are probably going to be built 11 are going to be customized to suit the needs of each 12 individual homeowner. So there were will be a lot of 13 architectural work in the design stages, to not only 14 build on your regular lots, but the lots that you 15 mentioned, 45, 23, 24, that are a little bit odd 16 shaped. It still meets the requirements of the lot 17 and the setbacks, although some of the offsets might 18 have to be adjusted in the design stage to 19 accommodate a house on those lots. 20 MR. AVDOULOS: Yeah, I just want to 21 make sure we don't keep seeing things going to ZBA 22 for variances for each individual. 23 MR. QUINN: There's no plan that any 24 house will need a ZBA variance to be constructed. 96
1 These are all 19,000 plus square foot lots, so there 2 is sufficient room. 3 MEMBER AVDOULOS. Yeah, I can see the 4 majority of them have nice rectilinear shapes to 5 them, but then you get to the odd ball sizes that get 6 hard to work with. 7 MR. ROSSI: Also, it's important to 8 point out that the home size ranges will probably be 9 anywhere from 3500 square feet on the minimum, 10 possibly up to 5,000 square feet. So, you know, 11 there are some choice lots there as far as bigger 12 lots that you can build the bigger homes on, and then 13 obviously someone that doesn't want to go quite that 14 far, can also pick other lots that will accommodate 15 the smaller homes. So there's a good variety and we 16 will work together with the builders to, you know, 17 make this an A-1 community. We really feel strongly 18 about the site. It's got a lot of really nice 19 features and I think it will be a good attraction to 20 the community of Novi. 21 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Okay. Thank you. 22 To dovetail Commissioner Shroyer's 23 comments on the bermed area to the north there, we 24 received the Site Plan that indicated the extent of 97
1 the wetlands to the north, and one of the waivers, I 2 guess, is for the required berm. And I think 3 Commissioner Kocan can help me out on this. 4 As we abut an industrial piece of 5 property, there's a requirement for a berm all along 6 that property line. The larger wetland is the one to 7 the northwest, and then the smaller wetland which is 8 bordering the northeast corner. I don't know if 9 that's considered a large enough buffer, because we 10 don't know what's going to happen to those properties 11 in the rear. And I guess the concern was all these 12 other pieces of property, with exception to -- well, 13 23 abuts multi residential, and 24 and 25, 26, 14 they're kind of strange because they're put out in 15 the corner and they're actually facing those houses. 16 I couldn't tell what the landscaping was. 17 I see a whole bunch of trees along 18 that perimeter, but are we looking at screening, and 19 providing enough screening for these properties not 20 to look out into the residential area because you 21 got -- I'm sorry, into the industrial area, because 22 you've got a lot of things happening on Grand River, 23 and I know a lot of these properties are going to 24 start getting developed, and they're going to be 98
1 abutting that. And I just want to make sure that, 2 you know, we provide the proper buffers as intended 3 in the ordinance. 4 MR. ROSSI: Yeah. On the north end we 5 show a berm that's proposed about the central section 6 of the property. However, we are in conversation 7 with the property owner to actually -- I believe the 8 property owner owns all of those parcels on the north 9 end. We actually would like to extend the berm 10 across the whole north side, not only to screen out 11 the building but also to screen off that whole area 12 so that if future development comes into that area, 13 that we will have a berm with some good sized trees 14 that will help to screen off our project with future 15 projects to the north. 16 And then also to the west, there is 17 also a proposed berm with planting to actually screen 18 off the apartment buildings from Lot 23, 24, in that 19 corner. 20 MEMBER AVDOULOS: And I guess that 21 was my concern and question. I didn't know if that 22 property was the only one that was contacted, or the 23 one on both sides. If we were going to look at 24 creating something, we could extend it all the way 99
1 across and be amenable to both- 2 MR. ROSSI: (Interposing) Absolutely. 3 We are in total agreement. 4 And Larry, I believe he owns all of 5 those pieces there? 6 MR. SWISTAK: Good evening. My name 7 is Lawrence Swistak. 8 The gentleman who owns that property, 9 his name is Jeffrey Heyn, H-e-y-n. I've met with 10 him, we've talked. His attorney just became a judge 11 so we kind of stalled. We've exchanged agreements. 12 We've agreed in principle. The only issue now, he 13 has discovered that -- I think it's the sewer line 14 kind of cuts on both of our properties, so he now 15 wants me to amend the easement to add language to 16 allow him to come onto our property to access the 17 sewer line, which I will agree to do. He's taking 18 water from us, so I gave him an easement for water, 19 and the issue now is just the berm line, which we've 20 already agreed on. 21 I've talked to him about extending the 22 berm and he doesn't have a problem with it. I think 23 it will be part of the easement agreement. We've 24 exchanged agreements now for several months. 100
1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. 2 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Okay, thank you. 3 Just to finish up here. The 4 Applicant has addressed the variance to the 5 recreation area. The location of the recreation 6 area, I think based on specifics of this particular 7 piece of property, is appropriate. The wetland is 8 very large. It's going to be maintained to the 9 south. 10 I was indicating that I wouldn't mind 11 seeing something larger than the path, at least the 12 one that connects the east road into the open space 13 area, to be a little wider, which would be visibly 14 more of an image so that you can see the space, 15 rather than seeing it through a couple of houses. 16 But if the open space is actually meeting the two 17 acres, then I think we're okay there. 18 The other waiver of the berm at the 19 west entry drive. With what was indicated with our 20 Landscape Review, I'd like to keep it as natural as 21 possible. We'll introduce whatever berms are 22 required for the ordinance, but whatever we can keep 23 in a natural state I'm all in favor for. 24 And at this point, that's all I have 101
1 right now, Madam Chair. 2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. 3 Member Kocan. 4 MEMBER KOCAN: I'll continue where 5 Mr. Avdoulos stopped off. Good evening Mr. Quinn, 6 Mr. Rossi. 7 MR. QUINN: Good evening. 8 MEMBER KOCAN: Continuing with the 9 berm -- I'm big on berms, particularly between 10 residential and light industrial. And my question to 11 the attorney was who's responsible to put in the 12 berm; is that the first development that goes in, the 13 residential to berm from the light industrial, or the 14 light industrial from the residential? 15 It sounds like you're working it out. 16 This is a requirement as far as I'm concerned. I 17 understand that there's wetlands in the area that may 18 impact some of the berming, but a ten-foot berm is 19 required. That's at least a 70-foot area of 20 screening at a minimum that I would be requiring for 21 these homes, Numbers 24, 25, 26, and 38. That's part 22 of our ordinance, and that is very important. 23 MR. ROSSI: We would like to make that 24 berm as wide as possible so that we can get as much 102
1 height to be able to screen. So we're in total 2 agreement. That's for the benefit of our project. 3 MEMBER KOCAN: Okay. The other 4 problem I have, and we've heard from one resident 5 this evening who abuts the active recreation area, 6 and I have not heard from the other residents, but 7 I'm concerned about the active recreation area being 8 -- a pathway being so close to their property line. 9 And that to me is a form of intrusion, in my 10 opinion. 11 It looks like the path is within ten, 12 15 feet of the property line, and typically in 13 backyards you have to have a minimum of a 35-foot 14 setback. There is no actual berm requirement in the 15 ordinance because this is a different situation, but 16 we're looking at this to see whether or not it meets 17 the intent of the ordinance. It's active open 18 recreation space, so I think we need to address 19 additional setbacks of pathways and badminton courts. 20 And I didn't see any landscaping, as a 21 matter of fact, at all proposed along that south 22 property line. That concerns me greatly. So it 23 looks like if we have to put some landscaping or have 24 a green belt of landscaping there, which I believe 103
1 should be a requirement of this particular 2 development, then that could impact the amount of 3 active recreation area, which would mean you would 4 need to add additional recreation area. Could you 5 address that for me, please? 6 MR. ROSSI: Yes. I think our 7 intention would be not only to provide some screening 8 of that area, but also to provide some type of 9 decorative type fencing to kind of outline that 10 sports field or recreation area, so as to protect the 11 kids as well, when they're playing on that field 12 chasing after a ball, that they're not going onto the 13 adjacent yard, or not going towards the pond or into 14 the wetland. So that would be kind of a border 15 outlining that recreational field, and it also gives 16 it some kind of buffer between the south property 17 owner and also the recreational field. 18 MEMBER KOCAN: Now are you talking 19 about on the property line itself or around the 20 badminton court, or whatever it is? 21 MR. ROSSI: Around the actual 22 recreational field. And we would meet all the 23 setback requirements of the City as far as the fence 24 installation, however the City would want to handle 104
1 that, or exactly where they would want to put it. 2 MEMBER KOCAN: I'm wondering if I 3 heard -- I think I'm hearing two things. Number 4 one -- and I'm trying to process -- would you be 5 suggesting, and I don't know if the residents want 6 this, would you be suggesting a brick wall along the 7 back, or are you saying that it would be some other 8 kind of a fence? 9 MR. ROSSI: A decorative type fence. 10 A wood fence, something that would still be natural 11 looking and, you know, go along with the natural 12 features of the property. Not a brick wall, not 13 something that would look intrusive. 14 MEMBER KOCAN: Okay, because I 15 realize we want to maintain the character of the area 16 which is woodlands and wetlands. 17 MR. ROSSI: As far as the landscaping 18 goes, there's a lot of natural features and trees in 19 that area, and we moved the sports field to the best 20 desired location in order to minimize the impact on 21 any environmental areas. And I believe we're only 22 taking down 13 or 14 trees -- most of them are Ash 23 and Elm and are probably not considered high quality 24 trees -- in order to provide for the sports field. 105
1 So we're trying to accomplish both things, keep it 2 natural looking, and still give the active recreation 3 to the kids in the area. 4 MEMBER KOCAN: Well, I would be
5 looking for at least some pine trees. The walkway 6 that goes along there -- Mr. Schultz is trying to- 7 MR. SCHULTZ: (Interposing) Just a 8 reminder that this issue of the location of the 9 active area being close to the edge of the 10 subdivision, is one that's going directly to the 11 ZBA. So those properties to the rear, will be 12 notified when that goes to the ZBA, would be able to 13 show up at the meeting. Certainly the ZBA would 14 probably appreciate any comments that you have, but 15 they have the clearest ability to impose conditions 16 like fences or walls. 17 MEMBER KOCAN: Where did this go to 18 the ZBA -- oh, to allow it on the outer perimeter of 19 the subdivision. 20 MR. SCHULTZ: Just a reminder. I 21 didn't mean to cut your comments short or anything. 22 But there will be a hearing before the ZBA and they 23 have very clear authority to say yes, but, we impose 24 these conditions. 106
1 MEMBER KOCAN: All right, but our 2 finding is whether or not we approve this recreation 3 area, where the location is. So in my opinion, I 4 think I can add some stipulations to that. 5 MR. SCHULTZ: I agree. 6 MEMBER KOCAN: Point taken. Thank 7 you. I'm trying to work it from both ends. 8 So I would appreciate some additional 9 landscaping there. I know that we do in Meadowbrook 10 Lake Subdivision, we have a similar park area that 11 has a walkway from two entrances of the subdivision 12 that come into a common picnic/park area. The other 13 thing that our subdivision has that we utilize an 14 awful lot are the picnic tables, and just some 15 benches and whatever to sit and watch the lake. Of 16 course, we can fish. I don't think you can fish in 17 your wetlands. 18 MR. QUINN: Catfish. 19 MEMBER KOCAN: Oh, we do get catfish. 20 MR. ROSSI: I don't see that as a 21 problem because we have plenty of replacement trees 22 to be, you know, planted on site and we can 23 definitely provide some landscaping in that area. We 24 would work with the staff in order to come up with a 107
1 mutual agreement on how they would like to see that 2 done. 3 MEMBER KOCAN: Okay. And I 4 appreciate you taking your residents into 5 consideration. Those residents that abut that 6 property. 7 MR. ROSSI: You're welcome. 8 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Member Kocan? 9 MEMBER KOCAN: Yes. 10 MEMBER AVDOULOS: While you're on 11 that, does that blue line indicate the path? 12 MR. ROSSI: Yes, it does. 13 MEMBER KOCAN: Isn't there also a 14 circular path around? 15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: One at a time. 16 MR. QUINN: I think that's just 17 showing the major in and out and not the loops off of 18 the main path. 19 MR. ROSSI: There's a path that 20 actually loops around. We can move this around to 21 this side, it just hasn't been colored in. 22 MEMBER KOCAN: I just propose that 23 you move that just a little bit farther away from the 24 lot line. 108
1 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Or even just leave 2 it like that. 3 MEMBER KOCAN: Not have the loop. 4 MR. ROSSI: Continue the path through 5 here and not have the looping path? 6 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Right. And that's 7 only just to do what you indicated, to alleviate any 8 intrusion along that property line. Just keep 9 everybody as far north as possible, but keep it all 10 open, and that way it allows you that strand to do 11 any plantings or evergreens. 12 MEMBER KOCAN: I'd appreciate that. 13 I'd appreciate that you take that into consideration. 14 MR. ROSSI: Yeah, we can do that. No 15 problem. 16 MEMBER KOCAN: The reduction of the 17 size of the sedimentation basin outside Unit 12 -- it 18 may be an engineering question. I see it referred to 19 as -- it's called mitigation and it's also called the 20 sedimentation basin. If we reduced the size of it, 21 number one, does it still meet our mitigation ratio, 22 which I believe the answer is going to be- 23 MR. CROY: Yes. 24 MEMBER KOCAN: If you reduce the size 109
1 of the sedimentation basin, do you now change the 2 effectiveness of that sedimentation basin? 3 MR. CROY: It is our opinion that we 4 wouldn't want mitigation and sedimentation to occur 5 in the same location anyway. And since, according to 6 JCK, we believe that they're over the ratio of 7 mitigation that they need, we believe it's going to 8 be possible to eliminate the coexistence of the 9 sedimentation taking place where there's mitigation 10 taking place. 11 MEMBER KOCAN: But it's going to 12 remain a sedimentation basin. We're removing it from 13 the mitigation numbers is my understanding, but it's 14 going to remain sedimentation but it's going to be 15 downsized; is that what I heard? 16 MR. HIRTH: That's correct. 17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Excuse me. 18 MR. HIRTH: My name is Rick Hirth, 19 with Warner, Cantrell, Padmos. I'm the engineer for 20 the project. 21 The sedimentation basin, due to the 22 comments of both the DEQ and JCK, our comments this 23 afternoon and this evening before the meeting, we're 24 looking at a way to reduce the depth of that 110
1 sedimentation basin. And we're looking at perhaps 2 using some of the more mechanical treatment devices, 3 and also reducing the depth of the water. And by 4 reducing the depth of the water to one or two feet, 5 allows us to create the wooded wetland around it, 6 reduce some of the runoff that goes to that 7 particular basin, and keep us at the one to two 8 feet -- allowing us to pull it off of Unit Number 9 12. 10 So based on our conversations with the 11 engineer and Dr. Tilton, and my experience with it, I 12 believe we can accomplish all of that. And JCK's 13 comments about reducing the number of mitigation 14 areas, especially where they coexist with sediment 15 basins, is a very good idea. I mean, we were trying 16 to promote as much mitigation as possible. We're 17 over -- we've got a high ratio. So we agree that 18 mitigation and sedimentation can be pulled apart and 19 done that way. Not that we might not have some in 20 this area because of just the physical nature of it, 21 but the other areas can be pulled apart. 22 MEMBER KOCAN: I just don't want to 23 compromise any of the runoff or water on the site. 24 MR. HIRTH: As well as we don't 111
1 either. It's expensive to try to repair it. I mean, 2 we want to get it right the first time. 3 MEMBER KOCAN: In the Concept Plan 4 there were a number of micropools that were proposed 5 and they have been removed? 6 MR. HIRTH: Yes, and that's what led 7 us to a little bit larger sedimentation basin to 8 revert more back to a little bit more of conventional 9 sediment traps and mitigation areas. We're not 10 particularly opposed to micropools per se, but on 11 single family, where there are lots and these 12 micropools are located between the lots, we saw a 13 problem and the DEQ saw a problem, and I believe your 14 wetland people saw a problem with the long-term 15 viability of those. You know, people might have a 16 tendency to throw grass clippings in there, filling 17 it. Although the micropools might work in some multi 18 family areas where you have a lot stricter control of 19 maintenance and stuff, I think in the single family 20 developments going to a system more like we have is 21 the answer. 22 MEMBER KOCAN: I appreciate that, 23 because that was a concern at the concept level. 24 MR. HIRTH: That was brought up, yes. 112
1 MEMBER KOCAN: Storm Water Plan. I 2 believe that there were two different opinions in the 3 letters. JCK felt that you did not have to comply 4 with it. I believe that the City staff believed that 5 there has to be compliance with that to the extent 6 feasible. 7 Mr. Croy? 8 MR. CROY: That's exactly that, to 9 the extent feasible. They're not exempt from the 10 ordinance at this point. We're going to make them 11 comply to the extent feasible, without reducing the 12 number of buildings, density. 13 MEMBER KOCAN: Can you just state for 14 me why if the Preliminary Site Plan is just being 15 reviewed, why we're not requiring total compliance 16 with this Storm Water Ordinance? 17 MR. SCHULTZ: I don't have the 18 resolution in front of me, Member Kocan, but 19 essentially it takes into consideration -- and maybe 20 Nancy can give a better answer to this, so I'll let 21 her -- how much work they've done to date. 22 MS. McCLAIN: In July, when the 23 interpretation for the new Storm Water Ordinance was 24 adopted by the City Council, the requirement was that 113
1 the Site Plan had to have been submitted prior to the 2 adoption of the ordinance and be an active Site Plan. 3 This was submitted and has been an active Site Plan. 4 MEMBER KOCAN: That's what I needed 5 to hear. Thank you. 6 Just a couple of more things. Two 7 things. One of them, I'm on the Woodlands Review 8 Board, and I foresee an awful lot of cases coming to 9 the Woodland Review Board after this development is 10 built. There's a note in the papers that state that 11 you're going to encourage naturalistic woodland 12 landscaping. You also talked this evening about 13 setting up signs and telling people these are 14 woodland areas. 15 We need to do something to tell people 16 that these are woodlands. You're not going to come 17 back and say the developer never told me I couldn't 18 build here, because that's what we hear over and over 19 again at the Woodlands Review Board. So there's got 20 to be some way, and maybe the City has to work with 21 this to ensure that either that yellow fence is up 22 the entire time, that it's posted. I want something 23 a little bit more than encouraging the residents in 24 those woodland areas. 114
1 MR. ROSSI: Yes. They will be 2 notified in many different ways. You know, by the
3 restrictions. It definitely will be clarified in the 4 restrictions, as far as what they can do, what they 5 can't do and, you know, this is protected woodlands. 6 When they sign a contract, it will be in their 7 contract. There will be signage, as discussed 8 earlier, throughout the site demarcating these 9 woodlands. And plus the orange tree fence that will 10 go up once building starts, so we can keep control of 11 this so long as we're building the homes, and once 12 the homeowners move in and have their C of O, and the 13 orange fence at that point is still up. You know, we 14 can only control the homeowners so much. We've given 15 them the language. They understand what can be done, 16 what can't be done. If they start going into those 17 areas then, you know, we try to, you know, let them 18 notice them. 19 MEMBER KOCAN: It's very important 20 that they know. 21 MR. SWISTAK: Let me interrupt a 22 second. There are legal restrictions. Since it is 23 a site condominium, the Master Deed, which is the 24 deed under which they are producing is recorded, 115
1 there are clear restrictions in that Master Deed. 2 The bylaws, which are part of the Master Deed have 3 clear restrictions prohibiting them from doing 4 anything in the wetland or the woodland. 5 And on top of that, when they get this 6 package of condominium documents, a lot of people 7 won't read it or just give it to an attorney to read 8 -- and he won't read it either -- but they get a 9 disclosure statement. That disclosure statement is 10 very much like a prospectus when you buy a stock, and 11 that's about a five or six-page summary of 12 everything. In boldface type, here are your 13 restrictions, here are your important restrictions, 14 and that is clearly one of them, that the woodlands 15 and wetlands which are delineated on the Site Plan 16 and which are part of your property, cannot be 17 touched. And the Association which has been formed, 18 by the way, has the power to enforce that Master Deed 19 and bylaws, and they will. 20 MEMBER KOCAN: And is that deed also 21 filed with the City? 22 MR. SWISTAK: The Master Deed is 23 actually filed with Oakland County. 24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: One at a time. We 116
1 have a court reporter here, so let Mr. Swistak 2 continue, Mr. Schultz, and you'll get your time. 3 MR. SCHULTZ: Just a comment. Those 4 kinds of things do get a lot more attention lately. 5 I don't know if some of the things that have been 6 coming to the Woodland Review Board are older 7 versions of the Master Deed, but they do come to us, 8 they are approved, and we have someone in our office 9 that does, I would say, almost exclusively that, and 10 those provisions are paid attention to and we make 11 sure they're in there. 12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you, 13 Mr. Schultz. 14 Mr. Swistak, do you have anything else 15 to add? 16 MR. SWISTAK: No, I don't. 17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. 18 MEMBER KOCAN: Two last questions. 19 The measurements for the distance between the access 20 roads, there is a proposed stub to the east and it 21 looks like that stub goes to -- it doesn't stub to 22 the industrial property, it's stubbing to the 23 residential property; is that correct? 24 MR. ROSSI: That's correct. 117
1 MEMBER KOCAN: And there's a person 2 who owns that piece of property at this time -- I 3 mean, is there? 4 MR. ROSSI: A resident. 5 MEMBER KOCAN: And I believe we 6 talked about having a bond for construction of the 7 stub, and that would be something that I would be 8 looking for. But if you could just tell us again 9 what the distance is from the road to the stub, to 10 the stub, to the other side. 11 MS. McBETH: They would need to have a 12 connection to the roadway system or a stub street 13 every 1300 feet, and one is not provided along that 14 west property line because there is a protective 15 woodland natural area associated with the multiple 16 family development that's located there. And the 17 multiple family development did not provide a stub 18 connection in that area. 19 MEMBER KOCAN: Okay, but then the 20 other stubs, if they have the east stub and then a 21 stub to the north, there would be no variance or 22 waiver? 23 MS. McBETH: There is still a 24 City Council waiver for the lack of a stub street on 118
1 the west side. 2 MEMBER KOCAN: Are we making a 3 recommendation to the City Council -- no, this is our 4 approval. 5 MR. SCHULTZ: Yes. 6 MR. SCHULTZ: That's all I have. 7 I'll pass the floor. Thank you very much. 8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Anyone on this 9 side? 10 Mr. Ruyle. 11 MEMBER RUYLE: Just a comment. Thank 12 you, Madam Chair. From the Plan that you earlier 13 brought to us and this Plan, I think you did a 14 phenomenal job and you did address 99 percent of the 15 stuff we asked you for, so thank you very much for 16 that. 17 MR. ROSSI: Thank you. 18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Anyone have any 19 comments? 20 (There were no further comments 21 from the Commission members.) 22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If not, I'd like to 23 make my comments. 24 I think you've taken an awful lot of 119
1 natural features into consideration, and I like a lot 2 of the ideas that you have. I think you've given it 3 careful thought. I assume since Lot Number 30 is a 4 premium lot, that Dr. Tilton has no objection of 5 retaining that lot. 6 If you could just answer that question 7 for me, sir. 8 DR. TILTON: Yes. Lot 30 is fine. I 9 think they can build on that without impacting the 10 wetland areas. It may, in my opinion, be one of the 11 better lots in the site because it's surrounded by 12 wetland on three sides, but I have my own biases. 13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You're right. And 14 you have no problem by Lot Number 20, taking that 15 sedimentation basin, reducing the size, and it will 16 serve as a sedimentation basin. 17 DR. TILTON: Yes. As a matter of 18 fact, we think that if we can make it a little 19 shallower, it will actually be more effective. Some 20 of the more recent studies of the effectiveness of 21 sedimentation basins are saying that if you can get a 22 little more shallow, you won't get the resuspension 23 of the finer sediment. You can get up to 70 percent 24 removal, so we're pleased with that. 120
1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I'm not sure if 2 you're the person I should ask this question of, but 3 if you could bear with me for a moment, Dr. Tilton, I 4 would really appreciate it. 5 DR. TILTON: Sure. 6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: In reading the -- I 7 think in reading the Engineering Review, and maybe 8 this is an engineering question, maybe this isn't 9 you. But I'm looking at the water flow. I'd like 10 someone to explain to me, where does it go from -- if 11 all the storm water will ultimately discharge into 12 the 18.1 acre wetland, which is that big central 13 portion, then where does it go from there? 14 That's my question. I don't know if 15 that's one I should be asking you or Mr. Croy. 16 DR. TILTON: Well, as long as I have 17 it, Mr. Croy, why don't I -- my understanding is that 18 there is a small intermittent stream that flows from 19 the north, flows down through here, and then out, 20 right about down through here. 21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. 22 DR. TILTON: And that this flow 23 pattern has been established and is actually present 24 with standing water and wildlife habitats throughout 121
1 the wetland complex. So what's going to happen is as 2 water comes out of the sedimentation basins at the 3 various locations, and into the wetlands complex, it 4 will seek its own level and flow out of the site in 5 the natural pattern, and eventually hook up with the 6 Rouge River. 7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. That's what 8 I thought. 9 So you just kind of explained this to 10 me, and do we know the rate of discharge for this 11 site; is that something that you can calculate and 12 tell me, or am I asking you a little bit too much? 13 MR. CROY: That might be something we 14 end up looking into for the Final Plan Approval 15 Review. 16 DR. TILTON: And at the present time 17 from a wetland perspective, and Mr. Croy and I have 18 sort of talked about this, I'm reluctant to do any 19 storage or restricting any flow in this wetland 20 complex because of its diversity. I would like to 21 just have it maintain -- the fact that it's got a lot 22 of resistance to flow, we can put a lot of water into 23 it, and just by its natural storage function, we can 24 get it to be stored. 122
1 I can't tell you what the discharge 2 rate would be because it's not coming out of an 3 engineer detention basin. But I can tell you it's 4 going to go in there. For small storms, it will 5 never come out. It will sit in the wetland and it 6 will be evaporated. For larger storms, it will work 7 its way across the forested complex and then out the 8 outlet, saturating the soil as it goes. 9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: The outlet would 10 be on the northeastern portion. 11 MR. CROY: Yes. On this side. 12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Right where we're 13 talking about putting that stub road. 14 DR. TILTON: Yes. There's a big box 15 culvert that's going to go there. 16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. I appreciate 17 that. I wanted to understand that. 18 My other question is, and I don't 19 know, maybe Ms. McBeth can answer this question. 20 On the southeast by Lot Number 9, how much 21 vegetation is there between that lot number and the 22 first owner of that lot? 23 MS. McBETH: I'll have to refer to 24 this. Just a moment. 123
1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I want to make 2 sure that that -- I was reading through the past 3 minutes, and there was a gentleman, Mr. Vedro who 4 indicated that he lived next door to the proposed 5 property, and he was concerned with the encroachment 6 on the wetlands, which we've covered, and then he 7 said -- and this is an interesting one, this is why I 8 asked all these questions: 9 I believe the wetlands have a definitive bearing 10 on the state of my well and my neighbor's well. 11 And that's why I wanted to know about 12 the flow, to make sure that this man and the other 13 neighbor, their well is in fact enclosed there, there 14 is not any problem, and I also wanted to make sure 15 that there would be no flooding coming off that 16 property onto his property. 17 So I wanted to know if you could tell 18 me the distance -- because when I was out there at 19 that site, and this is a hard site to really walk 20 especially in the winter. I walked it before as much 21 as I could, but I noticed on the Vedro, the last 22 owner, they had property which they kept natural that 23 was out by the first -- I think it was the first 24 telephone pole. So they have a buffer there. And I 124
1 wanted to know how much of a buffer there will be 2 between Lot Number 9 and their area. Maybe I can't 3 read these prints correctly. 4 MS. McBETH: I've got the Plan open 5 now that shows the existing trees out on that 6 particular lot. There are a number of trees along 7 the Eleven Mile Road frontage, and there are a few 8 scattered throughout the site, but depending on the 9 placement of the home on that lot, they may need to 10 get rid of a number of those trees. But as I 11 understand it, they're planning to go lot by lot and 12 determine which footprint of which house is going to 13 be located on that lot, and then come in and seek the 14 approval to remove those trees. 15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: All right. 16 Because I want to make sure that their property is 17 well protected. And, obviously, whoever builds on 18 Lot 9, does not want to see their neighbor either. 19 The other thing that I wanted to ask 20 was, since we have a new Storm Water Ordinance, and I 21 asked Mr. Coburn this question before. I do not want 22 to belabor the point, but I would like you, Mr. Croy, 23 to kind of take one of those drawings and physically 24 kind of explain how things will go. Because I think 125
1 the Commission needs to understand the new ordinance, 2 and what better time than now to start -- oh, it 3 doesn't apply this time. I'm sorry, I thought it 4 applied. It doesn't apply. 5 Okay. Then we're clear with 6 everything. To the extent feasible. All right. 7 I think that you've done a very nice 8 job, and I think it's very difficult to keep all 9 these trees and wetlands, because I think they're 10 very important. There's one thing I noticed, 11 Mr. McGinnis, there were 69 Pin Oaks. Is that a 12 replacement tree, or is that what is existing there 13 now? And I think that's by the front entrance of -- 14 is it the east? Are we keeping Pin Oaks or are we 15 putting Pin Oaks in? 16 MR. McGINNIS: I'm not exactly sure. 17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think it was 18 on -- wait, I have the blue sheet. I don't know if 19 your landscape person can answer it. It is on the 20 LLP-1, Landscape Planting Plan and Open Space Plan, 21 and I don't know -- it says replacement trees. 22 MR. McGINNIS: Correct. 23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And it says: 69 24 Pin Oak, two and a half-inch caliper. 126
1 Is it that they're going to replace 2 that, or they're going to put Pin Oaks in? 3 MR. McGINNIS: That's the tree that's 4 going to be installed for replacements. 5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Isn't Pin Oak one 6 of the trees that is not very good in this area and 7 usually needs a lot of treatment and injection and 8 most of them die? 9 MR. McGINNIS: That is true, but 10 there are also a lot in the area, and they are sort 11 of a wetland edge tree also. 12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And are they able 13 to tolerate the carbon monoxide coming from the 14 automobiles that will go through the entrance? 15 MR. McGINNIS: That's a good 16 question. I don't know that answer. 17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I ask that, 18 Mr. McGinnis, because we have taken, in our complex, 19 we have taken down almost every Pin Oak. We only 20 have a couple left that are somewhat enclosed, and 21 they require a lot of care. 22 MR. McGINNIS: They're probably 23 planted in an upland situation, and when you're in 24 that situation they are difficult to develop, but 127
1 there are some along Eight Mile that are very nice 2 too.
3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I have no further 4 questions at this point. Do we have anything else? 5 Mr. Shroyer. 6 MEMBER SHROYER: I believe I'm 7 prepared to make a motion. 8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Oh, that's great. 9 MEMBER SHROYER: It's rather lengthy 10 though, so I'll be slow. 11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Let's go nice and 12 slow. 13 MEMBER SHROYER: In the matter of 14 Asbury Park Estates, Site Plan 01-82 C, and motion to 15 approve the Preliminary Site Plan, Woodlands Permit 16 and Wetlands Permit, and grant a Planning Commission 17 waiver of requirement that open space area will be 18 located so that open space either borders a majority 19 of the lots within the subdivision or so that a 20 minimum of 25 percent of open space perimeter borders 21 subdivision streets. That was (a). 22 (b) is that Planning Commission 23 finding that proposed recreational facilities meet 24 the intent of active recreation space requirement of 128
1 the Subdivision Open Space Plan option, due to the 2 uniqueness of layout of the Plan, and in particular 3 Section 2402, Item 1 (a), (b), (c) and (d). 4 (c) The Planning Commission waiver of 5 the required berm at the west entry drive to allow 6 use of existing regulated woodland. 7 The approval is subject to: The 8 Zoning Board of Appeals variance to allow location of 9 the active recreation areas on the outer perimeter of 10 the subdivision. The City Council waiver for lack of 11 access stubs every 1300 around the periphery of the 12 site. Subject to the comments and the attached 13 reviewed letters being addressed on the Final Site 14 Plan. 15 The active recreation area will be 16 increased to the size of a minimum of two acres. 17 That areas, 7, 8 and 9 identified as Open Spaces be 18 removed from the Open Space calculations. That a 19 bond be implemented for a stub street to the east in 20 the event that a connecting road is built on the 21 property to the east in the future. 22 The replacing of the wood chip path 23 with a paved area to the city standard for a bike 24 path. That Lot 12, wetland intrusion be removed. 129
1 That landscape screening and possibly decorative 2 fencing be included to act as a buffer separating the 3 active recreation area from the residents to the 4 south. And that the berm extends along the entire 5 northern property line and as much of the northeast 6 corner as the wetland permits. 7 For the following reasons: 8 That the Applicant has worked very 9 diligently with the City, taking into consideration 10 City Council and Planning Commission recommendations 11 and comments. And that they are preserving 12 approximately 96 percent of the wetlands, and they 13 have obtained the necessary MDEQ Permit. 14 MEMBER RUYLE: Second. 15 MEMBER SHROYER: Did I miss anything? 16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: It was seconded by 17 Mr. Ruyle. 18 MEMBER KOCAN: There was just one 19 other comment that I think we had, which was the 20 removal of the walking path along the southern 21 property line of the recreation area. 22 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. If we want to 23 remove that, I'll be happy to include that in the 24 motion. 130
1 MEMBER RUYLE: Acceptable. 2 MEMBER KOCAN: Thank you. 3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: So the amendment to 4 the motion is that you remove the walk path on the 5 south property line of the recreation area. 6 MEMBER SHROYER: Southern portion of 7 the loop. 8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Southern portion of 9 the loop. 10 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes, ma'am. 11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have any 12 other comments? 13 (There were no further comments 14 from the Commission members.) 15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If not, then I will 16 ask Ms. McBeth to call the roll. 17 MS. McBETH: Thank you, Madam Chair. 18 Commissioner Avdoulos. 19 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Yes. 20 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Kocan. 21 MEMBER KOCAN: Yes. 22 MS. McBETH: Chairperson Nagy. 23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes. 24 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Papp. 131
1 MEMBER PAPP: Yes. 2 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Ruyle. 3 MEMBER RUYLE: Yes. 4 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Shroyer. 5 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 6 MS. McBETH: Motion passes 6 to 0. 7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very 8 much. Good luck, Gentlemen. 9 We are going to take a five-minute 10 break. 11 (A brief recess was taken.) 12 6. Premium Self Storage, Site Plan Number 02-58 13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We are resuming the 14 Commission meeting and we are here for the Public 15 Hearing at the request of Cypress Partners for the 16 approval of a Preliminary Site Plan and Special Land 17 Use Permit. Subject property is located in Section 18 24, on the north side of Grand River Avenue, between 19 Meadowbrook and Haggerty Road. The developer 20 proposes a self storage facility in the I-1, Light 21 Industrial District. 22 Mr. Schmitt. 23 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, Madam Chair. 24 If I could get the overhead for a 132
1 moment. 2 As you can see, the subject property 3 is located in the center of this drawing on 4 Grand River Avenue. Meadowbrook Road is here to the 5 west. To the south is the Willowbrook subdivision. 6 To the north is the Vincenti Court and the light 7 industrial development associated with it. And to 8 the west is a large wetland area, and to the east is 9 the Laird's Autometrics Building. 10 As you can see on the Zoning Map, the 11 zoning of the property and the surrounding properties 12 are all light industrial with a small amount of OS-1 13 to the southeast. 14 And the Land Use Map indicates that 15 the entire area is Master Planned for light 16 industrial uses, with the exception of this small 17 office area to the southeast. 18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Would you speak up? 19 MR. SCHMITT: Yes, ma'am. 20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. 21 MR. SCHMITT: To give a brief 22 walk-through of the site. Grand River Avenue to the 23 bottom. The main entrance will be located on the 24 western portion of the property. The main building 133
1 on the property will be a two-story -- one of the 2 stories will be underground -- but a two-story 3 climate controlled storage facility, with the 4 manager's quarters to the rear, and a small office to 5 the front. 6 In the rear of the property there will 7 be three of the typical storage units. All the 8 detention, storm water management for the property, 9 will be located in this location on the rear parcel, 10 and secondary access will be here. There will be 11 gated access per the specifications of the fire 12 department. 13 This is just a colored rendering of 14 the site. In the review of this request, a few items 15 were brought forth that will need the Planning 16 Commission's attention. Both the Facade and Fire 17 Review found that there are no issues with respect to 18 their reviews. 19 The Engineering Review indicated minor 20 comments that could be taken care of the time of 21 Final Site Plan Review, as did the Landscaping 22 Review. There are no regulated woodlands on the 23 site, and there's a minor wetland impact located in 24 this location. This was an administrative -- this 134
1 was a minor use, therefore administrative approval 2 was previously recommended. 3 The Traffic Review noted that a 4 Planning Commission waiver of the same side driveway 5 spacing would be required. I'll let our City 6 engineer discuss this further. 162 feet were 7 provided and 275 feet are required, based on the 8 speed limit of Grand River Avenue. 9 The other item that will need further 10 attention is the pitched roofs for the buildings on 11 the site. Under the Special Land Use requirements 12 for self storage facilities in I-1, there are two 13 requirements that you should take note of: One, no 14 building or structure, other than the manager's 15 quarters shall exceed 15 feet in height. As it is 16 currently designed, the Applicant is meeting this 17 requirement, so no variance will be required of 18 this. 19 However, the next requirement is that 20 in addition to the requirements of 2520, Exterior 21 Wall and Facade Material, self storage facilities, 22 including the storage buildings, caretaker's office 23 and quarters, shall be architecturally designed so as 24 not to have a flat roof, and shall instead have a 135
1 mantered gabled hip or gamberole roof design. 2 None of the buildings are currently 3 shown to have a pitched roof of any sort, and in 4 order to provide a pitched roof on these buildings, 5 they will need to exceed the height requirement of 15 6 feet. So the Planning Commission should take this 7 into account when granting a Special Land Use Permit. 8 There is difficulty and the applicants 9 can speak to this further, of placing a pitched roof 10 on a building the width of the climate controlled 11 building, which is approximately 230 feet by 180, I 12 believe. However the smaller buildings, it may be 13 possible to place a pitched roof on them without 14 exceeding the requirements. Further investigation 15 will need to be required of that, depending on how 16 the Planning Commission chooses to proceed in this 17 matter. 18 That's all I have at this time. Thank 19 you very much. 20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you, 21 Mr. Schmitt. 22 This is a Public Hearing, would the 23 Applicant like to address the Commission at this 24 point? 136
1 MR. PARKS: Yes, I would. Thank you, 2 Madam Chair. 3 My name is Michael Parks. I'm with 4 Cypress Partners. Before I get started, I'd like to 5 just kind of hand out a small packet of information, 6 if that's okay. It might help answer some questions 7 for you. 8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You want us to 9 read this? 10 MR. PARKS: No. Just to have it as a 11 -- particularly not at this hour. It will help as a 12 reference. 13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. 14 MR. PARKS: As I pointed out, I'm 15 Mike Parks with Cypress Partners. I will attempt to 16 make this short, particularly given the hour, and I 17 really appreciate the Commission taking the time to 18 work with us on this project. 19 I thought what I'd do tonight is 20 explain, really, kind of who we are, how we got here, 21 what the project is from a real estate standpoint, 22 and really what the project is from an operational 23 standpoint. The owners of the project that's going 24 to be going in is the Damone Group out of Troy, 137
1 Michigan; WLW Partners from Santa Fe, New Mexico; 2 and a local pension fund. I am just the Applicant of 3 record, assisting the owners in the process. 4 Nowak & Fraus is the engineer of 5 record. They helped us with the design, layout and 6 engineering. Benedetto & Associates from Chicago 7 will be the architect of record, and they are not 8 present tonight. Nowak is here with us to answer any 9 kind of technical questions at the end, as well as 10 Rob Lee from WLW Partners can address any operational 11 questions that you might have at the end. 12 We started looking for property in 13 Novi roughly in 1999. So we've kind of been at this 14 for a while. Not full-time, but kind of on a 15 part-time basis, knowing that we really would like to 16 be in Novi, and we came across this property which is 17 on Grand River. Some of you may know it, it's the 18 old Holcomb Building -- probably no surprise to you. 19 It's just about halfway between Meadowbrook and 20 Haggerty, 40900. 21 After we identified it, we thought it 22 was a good fit due to the industrial nature of the 23 area, and the zoning that's required for our product. 24 We thought it was a very good fit, there were no 138
1 residences around it. We thought that the width and 2 the size and the area fit very well with what we were 3 trying to do. 4 Once we identified the property, we 5 met extensively with staff, and they were very 6 considerate to us. We had lots of questions and 7 issues on the property, and they were very nice and 8 met with us a number of times. We met with Tim a 9 number of times, Mike Evans with the fire department, 10 Don with the Building Department a couple of times. 11 Juanita was fantastic and helped us process quite a 12 bit of stuff, and Barbara also was involved quite a 13 bit in the beginning. 14 Those meetings kind of took place 15 through September and October in the preparation of 16 the submittal, and in the beginning of November, we 17 submitted to be heard tonight. 18 The Plans in front of you reflect -- 19 the Plans that should be in front of you, reflect the 20 changes that were requested of staff. All of what I 21 would call the solvable changes with the property 22 which were about 90 percent of what the staff asked 23 for, and the outside consultants. There are two open 24 issues that Tim pointed out that we can address at 139
1 the end, and at the end of the meeting I'll kind of 2 use some exhibits to kind of walk you through, so 3 you can further understand what the issues are and 4 kind of ask any questions at that point. 5 Really, what is this project? It is a 6 self storage facility, that has a climate controlled 7 component to it, as well as traditional storage 8 buildings behind it. It's on roughly 5.5 acres. The 9 building, the self storage or the climate controlled 10 building in the front, has a footprint of 31,000 11 square feet. It will appear as one story from 12 Grand River from the elevation. As Tim pointed out, 13 it does have a lower storage area. The four 14 buildings together will equal about 86,000 square 15 feet of storage space. That will make up about 675 16 units. 17 As Tim pointed out, the height of the 18 front building will be 15 feet in some areas, which 19 is the maximum allowable underneath the height 20 limitations. Most of the building will be about 13.8 21 from the front. The back buildings will be 22 ten-foot-eight. And that kind of gives you a kind of 23 overall of the specific product. 24 The 675 units, I forgot to point out, 140
1 will be a mix of units from the smallest 5 by 5's to 2 10 by 30's. So it's a range of unit sizes to meet 3 the customer demand. 4 The operational description of the 5 project really is low impact, is the way I would 6 describe it. We get at any one time about five cars 7 at a time. As you can see by the Site Plan, there's 8 only eight spots that are required for the project. 9 Typically, users of the facility are 40 percent 10 business and 60 percent residential users. Hours of 11 operation are 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. The office has 12 shorter hours, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. The trash is handled 13 once a week. Lighting is low-dim. Security type 14 lighting at night; it's not offensive. 15 And that will kind of give you the 16 general operational points of the project. Again, 17 Rob Lee is here from WLW Partners to answer any more 18 difficult questions on the operational side. 19 What I think I'll do is I'll take a 20 minute and show you some exhibits so you can get a 21 better handle of the project, and then we'll be happy 22 to answer some questions for you. 23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. 24 MR. PARKS: This is the elevation 141
1 that- 2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Would you take the 3 hand mike. Just slip the microphone out. 4 MR. PARKS: Oh, it's nice. 5 This is the elevation in front of you 6 that we originally came in with. 7 MEMBER RUYLE: Can you move the mike 8 stand, sir? 9 MR. PARKS: Pretty busy up here. 10 The elevation before you is what we 11 originally came in with. That is a very close 12 rendition of what we will build. I have an 13 Architectural Plan that's in your package that gives 14 kind of a more detailed architectural view of the 15 project. But that really is a graphic display of 16 what we'll build. 17 The awnings are kind of up in the air 18 at this point. We've had kind of some maybe on those 19 from the staff, so we're open to suggestions on that. 20 The facade board- 21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: (Interposing) If 22 you can just pass it down to Mr. Shroyer, he'll pass 23 it down to each one so that we can look at it. 24 MR. PARKS: It gives you an idea of 142
1 the colors that we'll use in the project. Again, 2 I'll be happy to answer anything I can, but I think 3 it's pretty pleasing colors that we're using. 4 This is, again, the architectural 5 elevation that we'll be using. It shows, again, much 6 more detail than most people need to see, but it 7 gives you a better idea of kind of the specifics of 8 the elevation. Very close to what you see in the 9 graphic display. 10 This is a Landscaped Plan project. 11 As you can see a lot of the acreage is not being 12 used. It's being used for retention and just general 13 landscaped area. As you can see, most of the project 14 is orientated towards the southeast of the property, 15 and we'll have a predominant amount of open area and 16 green space. 17 We took the luxury of showing you 18 what is there now in case any of you have forgotten. 19 This is the Holcomb Building as it exists now. We 20 originally looked at this to convert it, thinking 21 that we could do something with this building, but 22 the more we got into it we realized pretty quickly, 23 it was a long shot at best, so we ditched those 24 efforts. And now we're just going to scrap it. 143
1 As you can see by the existing 2 condition on the inside, it really is unsalvageable 3 and we would be spending, many, many months and many, 4 many dollars in there trying to get it into the 5 condition that would be acceptable to us. 6 And that really concludes what I have 7 to say and I'll be happy to answer any questions that 8 you have. 9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very 10 much. 11 This is a Public Hearing. If there is 12 anyone that would like to address the Commission with 13 regard to the self-storage unit, please come 14 forward. 15 (There was no response from the 16 audience.) 17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Seeing no one, I 18 will close the Public Hearing. And, I'm sorry, I 19 forgot about the correspondence, Madam Secretary. 20 MEMBER KOCAN: Thank you. I have one 21 piece of correspondence from a Richard Hamlin 22 40750 Grand River, objecting to the development, 23 stating there may be a better use of this property 24 as an employer of more people. And there appears to 144
1 be an abundance of storage units within a one mile 2 radius of the site. 3 That's all I have. 4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very 5 much. 6 I now will close the Public Hearing 7 and turn it over to the Commission. And 8 Mr. Avdoulos, would you like to start? 9 MEMBER AVDOULOS. I have no choice. 10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You just had that 11 look. 12 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Thank you, 13 Madam Chair. 14 The review from the Planning 15 Department and our ordinance indicates that the 16 buildings that are going to be utilized, the storage 17 units, are to have pitched roofs. In looking at the 18 size of this climate controlled building, the 19 footprint is huge, and even if you put a minimum of 20 3/12 or 4/12 pitch, it gets way up there. 21 The thing that I didn't see in our 22 packet is a floor Plan or a layout of what this 23 particular building up front is going to look like, 24 and I guess I'd be interested in knowing what's going 145
1 to be housed on the first floor, what's going to be 2 housed in the basement or the lower level, and what 3 that particular space is going to be used for. 4 MR. PARKS: I think what I'll do is 5 I'll turn this over to Rob Lee of WLW. He's the 6 operational partner. 7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You know, could I 8 just say something. When you're asked a question 9 then you can come forward. 10 And is this a question you want to 11 ask, or do you just want to continue on first? 12 MEMBER AVDOULOS: No. I wanted to get 13 an answer to what it is being used for. 14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And then when you 15 come forward, sir, if you could just say your name 16 and spell it for the court reporter. 17 MR. LEE: My name is Rob Lee with WLW 18 Partners. And my name is spelled R-o-b, last name, 19 L-e-e. 20 Commissioner, if I can answer your 21 question. You were asking how the layout of the 22 floor Plan works. What you'll find in the floor Plan 23 are hallways along with storage units in those 24 hallways. In that building, we'll have about 32,000 146
1 square foot footprint, of which they'll be about 250 2 to 300 units on each floor on the aggregate floor and 3 also below grade. 4 MEMBER AVDOULOS: And are these 5 contained rooms? 6 MR. LEE: Yes. 7 MEMBER AVDOULOS: And are these 8 hallways eight-foot corridors? 9 MR. LEE: Five to six feet wide, and 10 we have doors along the hallways that are not unlike 11 your standard storage door, that are alarmed and tied 12 to a central computer system. 13 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Okay. And is there 14 an elevator in the building to takes things up and 15 down? 16 MR. LEE: Yes. 17 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Okay. I guess in 18 looking at the original rendering, it's sort of 19 difficult to get a picture of what the building is 20 going to look like. And this one here is just a 21 little different in the fact that it's got an extra 22 bay of glass to it. Which, in my opinion, is a 23 little bit more appealing than the rendition that we 24 received because it breaks it up a little more. 147
1 MR. LEE: I agree. 2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: One at a time, 3 please. 4 MEMBER AVDOULOS: It will create three 5 equal spaces. The issue that I've been looking at is 6 the pitched roof versus the flat roof, but in driving 7 up and down that site, the opposite side of the 8 street, the south side of Grand River, has quite a 9 few buildings with pitched roofs, starting with 10 Glenda's Nursery and going down the street to the 11 dentist office and so forth. 12 This side of the street, the property 13 next to it, Laird's Glass, is a flat roof building 14 that, I don't know, is it a two-story building? 15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes. 16 MEMBER AVDOULOS: And most of the 17 stuff along that part of the road is flat. I think 18 in all honesty, the building itself is contextual to 19 the site and to its surrounding neighbors. It fits 20 within what's there. It's not out of character. The 21 fact that we have a requirement that these be pitched 22 roofs, I think is probably more for the effect of the 23 smaller buildings in the back. And then in looking 24 at those smaller buildings, do we want to put pitched 148
1 roofs on those, and maybe the one up front keep it as 2 a flat roof building, then you got the thing of 3 having a complex with two different esthetics. 4 Right now, the way I'm leaning is for 5 this particular building -- if you came in as a light 6 industrial building, which is almost what it is at 30 7 something thousand square feet, it pretty much fits 8 the character with what's in the neighborhood. So I 9 really don't have a problem with it, but I'd like to 10 pass it on to the rest of the Commissioners to see 11 what their concerns are with the zoning requirement, 12 because that's what we're looking at mainly. 13 The height issue is what starts to 14 happen. I was taking a look at one of the smaller 15 buildings, which is 60 feet wide. If we ended up 16 putting a 4/12 pitch on it, the height of that at the 17 peak would reach ten feet. Add onto it, I don't know 18 what are the heights of these buildings, 12 feet, the 19 smaller ones? 20 MR. LEE: Around 11. 21 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Okay. So say 11 22 feet, and then we add ten feet to the top of the 23 pitch, so you'd have a building, a small building in 24 the back that the peak would be 21 to 22 feet, and we 149
1 have a 15-foot requirement. Although if you go to 2 the center line of the gable, which you're allowed to 3 do, you can knock off five feet, so you'd be around 4 16 or so. So it would be pretty close. Then if you 5 do that, and you keep the building up front flat at 6 15-foot or 16-foot, whatever, then the roof pitches 7 will stick up above the top of that building too. So 8 it starts getting kind of sloppy in order to meet the 9 requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 10 So at this point in time, I'm leaning 11 towards the design that was presented or that's being 12 presented by the Applicant. And I'm just going to 13 leave it right there. 14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Do we 15 have someone else that would like to make a comment? 16 Member Kocan. 17 MEMBER KOCAN: Now that Mr. Avdoulos 18 didn't say anything that I thought he was going to 19 say, I'll move to a different area. Because now I've 20 had ideas about the roof and adding something 21 different, and we talked about what's happening at 22 the dentistry offices, et cetera. 23 I'm going to listen to hear what other 24 people have to say. I believe you do have some pitch 150
1 on the roofs for the back areas because you have to 2 do that so that there's no rain water collection. 3 MR. LEE: That would be a slope. I 4 think the pitch that we're talking about is actually 5 this. I think, I've seen it in other ordinances and 6 it's to give -- to break the buildings up a little 7 bit, and you really can't do it on a building this 8 large. 9 In addition to that, I think it's 10 important to note that this building is facing 11 Grand River. Most people are not going to see the 12 buildings on the back side, unless they're inside the 13 property itself. 14 MEMBER KOCAN: My thinking was when I 15 read this and talked with staff, was that when this 16 ordinance was written, and I'm not privy to what the 17 thought process was with regard to this particular 18 ordinance, but I don't believe the way that it's 19 written that they took into consideration a climate 20 controlled self storage area such that you're 21 proposing here. 22 MR. LEE: That's correct. 23 MEMBER KOCAN: So that my discussion 24 with staff was I would probably be more amenable to a 151
1 taller building with a higher roof. We're going to 2 have to give you a variance no matter what -- so what 3 was I thinking, you know, what direction did I want 4 to go? 5 I do like the design that you have. 6 There are an awful lot of flat buildings, but I 7 believe the other consideration we have is in light 8 industrial you can go as high as 40 feet tall. Not 9 with this particular ordinance, but other buildings. 10 But there are some things that I do 11 want -- other areas that I do want to address, and 12 they have to do with landscaping. This is light 13 industrial, it is a special land use, there is a 14 requirement that when it does abut an office, that 15 there should be a ten-foot green belt of 16 landscaping. And as I look at the Landscaping Plan, 17 it doesn't look like there is that much landscaping 18 along the eastern border of the property. 19 Mr. McGinnis? 20 MR. McGINNIS: Well, there is a row 21 of evergreens and as the evergreens mature, the lower 22 branches may not screen as well in the future. There 23 is the possibility of adding some shrubs at a later 24 date, because landscaping is dynamic and it changes. 152
1 But I think as it's proposed right now with the 2 evergreens, the young evergreen trees, they'll remain 3 full enough to provide the screening that's 4 necessary. 5 MEMBER KOCAN: Would you consider 6 that a ten-foot green belt? I don't think it has to 7 be a berm, but it's supposed to be a ten-foot green 8 belt. I mean, one row of trees to me, that is not a 9 ten-foot wide landscaped area. 10 MR. McGINNIS: It could be added to. 11 When the evergreen trees are planted, there will be 12 gaps. There won't be a definite screen, but as the 13 trees mature, someday it's going to be too crowded. 14 So you could plant additional shrubs along there now 15 to sort of nurse the planting along. 16 MEMBER KOCAN: I guess my question 17 is, can you zig-zag the pine trees to give it some -- 18 I mean, does a pine tree typically take up ten feet 19 of area then? 20 MR. McGINNIS: Oh, very easily. 21 That's the problem. There's not enough room. 22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: With all due 23 respect, you're not planting ten-foot wide 24 evergreens. 153
1 MR. McGINNIS: No. 2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And it's going to 3 take quite a bit of time for it to get ten-foot wide. 4 I mean, you know, you see the evergreens and how 5 slowly they grow. I think she's got a point. The 6 ordinance says ten-foot wide landscaping. She's got 7 a point. You can always take bushes and intersperse 8 them and maintain them and stuff like that. I think 9 she's got a point. 10 I understand what your point is, 11 Mr. McGinnis, but it's going to take quite a while 12 before it's going to get ten feet wide. 13 MR. McGINNIS: Three or four years. 14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If even that fast. 15 We've -- I won't go into personal things, but we've 16 planted trees and evergreens, seven feet tall, and 17 they're not ten-feet wide yet. 18 I'm sorry, Member Kocan. 19 MEMBER KOCAN: That's okay. 20 I would just like to perhaps beef up 21 the landscaping at least on the east side. On the 22 west side, I believe that it does not abut an 23 office. I may be mistaken. 24 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Is that zoning or is 154
1 that a physical building? It's zoned I-1 on both 2 sides. 3 MEMBER KOCAN: Well, the actual 4 verbiage is when the site abuts an office, a 5 recreational facility, a motel, hotel, or a 6 restaurant in an I-1 District. 7 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Okay. 8 MEMBER KOCAN: Then the screening 9 shall consist of either a face brick wall, not less 10 than six feet in height, or what they're proposing, a 11 six-foot high chain link fence, and a ten-foot wide 12 landscaped green belt. 13 So I'm looking for -- when I think of 14 landscaping, I'm thinking of something more than just 15 a row of evergreens. I'm looking for some design 16 here. 17 MR. LEE: We can work on that. 18 MEMBER KOCAN: I appreciate that. 19 And on the other side, we've got parking that the 20 landscaping seems to stop, and then there is parking 21 spaces, and the landscaping continues to the north. 22 So, again, I would almost prefer to 23 have the landscaping blocking the parking area than 24 the actual building. So I would really like you to 155
1 work with- 2 MR. LEE: Commissioner Kocan, if I 3 could just get you to clarify that a little bit more. 4 Where you're talking about. 5 MR. SCHMITT: Can I get the overhead, 6 please? 7 MEMBER KOCAN: Do you have the 8 Landscape Plan? 9 MR. SCHMITT: Yes, I do. I believe 10 there were discussions previously, Commissioner Kocan 11 had indicated this area adjacent to the parking lot 12 and which appears to be somewhat barren at this 13 point. 14 MR. LEE: So you're talking just 15 south of this area in here, Commissioner Kocan? 16 MEMBER KOCAN: Right. Correct. It 17 seems like they stop and then the shrubbery starts 18 again. 19 MR. LEE: Okay. 20 MR. SCHMITT: And in addition, I 21 believe the other area you were discussing is along 22 this area. 23 MR. LEE: Yes. We will work on that, 24 and fill it in until the evergreens begin to grow. 156
1 Maybe put some shrubs in there that will maybe be two 2 or three-feet tall, or something like that. 3 MEMBER KOCAN: Is the road ten feet 4 away from the property line, the access road? Is 5 that within the ordinance, that the road can be ten 6 feet from the property line around the perimeter? 7 MR. LEE: Yes. That's all within 8 acceptable distances. 9 MEMBER KOCAN: Okay. And maybe it's 10 just adding esthetic short shrubs. 11 MR. LEE: Yes. 12 MEMBER KOCAN: It looks to me, 13 because this is the first time I've really paid 14 attention to buildings on that side of the street, 15 this will definitely be a benefit to the north side 16 of the street. So we need to set standards, and 17 that's what I'm looking for. 18 MR. LEE: We agree. I've spent a lot 19 of time in the community here looking at the other 20 buildings in the area, including the retail, and 21 tried to design something I felt looked good within 22 the area. 23 MEMBER KOCAN: There was a noise 24 analysis which was completed, and I appreciate that. 157
1 The lighting in the area can't be higher than 15 feet 2 if it's attached to the buildings because the 3 buildings are less than 15 feet tall. 4 With regard to should this be in this 5 location, I think about, I believe one of the only 6 areas that this self storage is allowed is in light 7 industrial. 8 MR. LEE: That's correct. 9 MEMBER KOCAN: And Grand River 10 appears to me to be a better place for a development 11 like this. It's not allowed next to residential, but 12 I'd rather see it farther away from residential than 13 abutting or close to residential. 14 That's all I have at this time. 15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. 16 Mr. Ruyle. 17 MEMBER RUYLE: Thank you, Madam 18 Chair. 19 What is an environmentally controlled 20 building? 21 MR. LEE: It is a building where we 22 control the heat and the cooling, as well as remove 23 the humidity. One of our big customers are 24 pharmaceutical representatives who, by federal law, 158
1 have to store their samples in a climate controlled 2 building. Climate control means you have a range of 3 temperatures, typically between 65 and 80 degrees. 4 We keep the building within that range as well as 5 remove humidity. 6 MEMBER RUYLE: Nothing frozen, or 7 anything like that? 8 MR. LEE: No. Not that we've done. 9 MEMBER RUYLE: Well, that's what I'm 10 saying. I mean, you don't have a storage locker that 11 would be for meat or anything like that. 12 MR. LEE: No. No cold storage, 13 nothing like that. 14 MEMBER RUYLE: All right. In my 15 recollection in the City of Novi, we don't have any 16 storage facilities like this. 17 MR. LEE: I would say that's probably 18 true. 19 MEMBER RUYLE: The one on 20 Haggerty Road doesn't have it and the one on 21 Novi Road doesn't have it. 22 MR. LEE: Not like this building, no. 23 MEMBER RUYLE: Right. I like the 24 attractiveness of it. It looks just like a regular 159
1 old building, which I think is more attractive than 2 seeing locker, locker, locker, locker. 3 MR. LEE: We agree. 4 MEMBER RUYLE: And like Commissioner 5 Kocan, we have to set a precedent, because we're now 6 developing Grand River and Grand River is our main 7 artery going in through into the City, so we have to 8 watch that site and that's an eyesore right now, the 9 building that's there, and you're doing nothing but 10 improving it. 11 Caution: If you go to the awnings, 12 make sure you don't put anything on them. They have 13 to be plain, because our Sign Ordinance is going to 14 tell you you can't put a sign on there saying this is a 15 self storage unit and stuff like that. Just for your 16 own sake. What you have is Novi there, and what 17 you're calling it, that's probably all you're going 18 to be allowed with our Sign Ordinance. Just a matter 19 of caution, if you do put the awnings up, don't put 20 anything on the awnings. 21 MR. LEE: Thank you. 22 MEMBER RUYLE: Thank you, 23 Madam Chair. 24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Papp. 160
1 MEMBER PAPP: Thank you, Madam Chair. 2 You have resident quarters in the 3 back. 4 MR. LEE: Yes, we do. 5 MR. PAPP: Is there any problem with 6 residents- 7 MR. SCHULTZ: (Interposing) It's 8 permitted. 9 MR. PAPP: It is permitted? 10 MR. SCHULTZ: Yes. 11 MR. PAPP: I think it's a very nice 12 building, and I could support having that in this 13 location. I think it's nicely done. It's going to 14 add a lot to Grand River. 15 MR. LEE: Thank you. 16 MR. PAPP: Thank you. 17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Shroyer. 18 MEMBER SHROYER: Well, I don't have a 19 whole lot of things here, but I have some questions. 20 I note -- and we don't have a lot of language in our 21 ordinance on self storage facilities. So maybe 22 that's one thing we ought to be looking at down the 23 road, just in case we get some more. Not that we're 24 looking to restrict them, but we want to be fair to 161
1 everyone and make sure that everyone follows the same 2 guidelines. 3 The first question I need to ask and 4 this will go to the City. The land that's directly 5 north, tell us about that. To me it appears that 6 it's landlocked, that there's no access to it from 7 any direction, unless it's owned by one of the 8 adjacent property owners. 9 MR. LEE: You can access it, I think, 10 off of Vincenti. 11 MR. SCHMITT: The property directly 12 to the north of where the main buildings are? 13 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 14 MR. SCHMITT: I believe is owned by 15 the same property owner to the east. That's right 16 behind it. If you can see, there appears to be 17 parked cars on both the properties on the aerial 18 photo. There is an access drive out to Joy Drive 19 there. Let me put it on the overhead. 20 MEMBER SHROYER: But it's being shown 21 as a separate parcel. I think we need to make sure 22 that we're not landlocking a piece of property. 23 MR. SCHMITT: I'm being told it's 24 actually owned by Mr. Vincenti who owns the property 162
1 to the north. So the access, I believe you're 2 talking about this parcel, the access would be coming 3 from either here, or the road that's coming down 4 here. 5 MEMBER SHROYER: Can we assume that, 6 since both properties are owned by the same 7 gentleman. 8 MR. EVANCOE: I don't see a problem 9 here, and, really, that's an existing condition 10 that's not affected by this proposal. 11 MEMBER SHROYER: That's fine. I just 12 wanted to make sure we're on the same page on that. 13 I do have a problem with the roof. I 14 mean it is our ordinance. I don't have as much of a 15 problem with the three buildings in the back, but the 16 view off of Grand River, even though there are some 17 flat roof buildings right now, I don't think that's 18 the vision that the City wants to go toward in 19 developing that corridor that is an entryway to our 20 City. So I do have some concerns about that. I 21 don't have an answer, I'm not an architect, and I 22 have to believe that subject matter experts that tell 23 us, you know, a building that size can't support a 24 roof, and if it does it exceeds our 15-foot maximum. 163
1 There's a problem either way. 2 MR. LEE: We've looked at it very 3 hard trying to fit within the ordinance, and we were 4 just unable to do it. 5 MEMBER SHROYER: I think the way I'm 6 leaning on that is I would be much more amenable to 7 something like this if -- and I'll use the words that 8 Commission Kocan used earlier -- if landscape was 9 beefed up quite a bit. If we could make the frontage 10 on Grand River more attractive, if the side berms 11 that we discussed had green belts, if they had more 12 landscaping. And like you guys have indicated, you 13 haven't made a decision if the awnings are going to 14 come. If you take away the awnings, right now that's 15 the most attractive part of that building. 16 MR. LEE: So the awnings are well 17 received, I imagine, from everybody? 18 MEMBER SHROYER: At least that's how I 19 feel. 20 MEMBER RUYLE: As long as they're not 21 signed. 22 MR. LEE: We will put awnings up. 23 MEMBER SHROYER: Well, we're not 24 directing you to do that and we can't direct you to 164
1 do that. But I think working with the City, you 2 know, we really need to look at the outside 3 appearance. I believe it was Member Avdoulos that 4 indicated that the additional glass at the west end 5 is much more attractive. That creates a better 6 appearance. So things along that line, I think would 7 be much better. 8 Also in our ordinance, and I do note 9 that it is on the Plan, the entire property needs to
10 be surrounded by a chain link fence, and you do show 11 that on the Plan. Is that chain link fence ugly 12 galvanized? 13 MR. LEE: We'll use slats and 14 decorate it some. 15 MEMBER SHROYER: The slats that- 16 MR. LEE: (Interposing) That fit in. 17 MEMBER SHROYER: (Continuing) -that 18 disappear and that fade? 19 MR. LEE: Well, when you consider 20 that not a lot of people are going to see it. Our 21 neighbors to the side are going to see it, the 22 neighbors to the north are going to see it, so it 23 really won't be seen from passing traffic on 24 Grand River Avenue. 165
1 MEMBER RUYLE: Point of information, 2 Madam Chair. 3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, Mr. Ruyle. 4 MEMBER RUYLE: Are you going to put 5 any barbed wire or anything like that on top of the 6 fence? 7 MR. LEE: No, sir. 8 MEMBER RUYLE: That's an important 9 question because kids playing and stuff. 10 MR. LEE: Absolutely not. 11 MEMBER RUYLE: Thank you. 12 MEMBER SHROYER: Is it the intent to 13 meander the fence -- well, what side of the 14 landscaping is the fence going to be on? It's 15 obviously going to be on the outside; correct? 16 MR. LEE: Yes. 17 MEMBER SHROYER: I'm not a proponent 18 of, like I said, the metal because it seems like that 19 always gets bent. Lawn mowers get caught on it, it 20 tears it up, it fades, it gets missing. I personally 21 prefer like the vinyl coated, whether it be a black 22 fence or green fence. 23 MR. LEE: See through? 24 MEMBER SHROYER: Pardon? 166
1 MR. LEE: Vinyl coated see through or 2 the slats? 3 MEMBER SHROYER: The see through. 4 Your buildings aren't unattractive, so I don't care 5 if somebody sees the buildings. I would look at the 6 fence being more of a secure issue, than one to 7 breach the opaqueness. 8 MR. LEE: What would you think of us 9 on the north side, just leaving it galvanized chain 10 link, and on the sides where it does have more 11 exposure, we'll use the plastic coating on it? 12 MEMBER SHROYER: That would be much 13 better in my opinion. 14 I believe we have some questions down 15 there. I'll yield the floor for now. 16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Avdoulos. 17 MR. EVANCOE: Madam Chair, with your 18 permission. 19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Sure. 20 MR. EVANCOE: Mr. Shroyer, being 21 that this is a Special Land Use, you would have the 22 ability to require a more decorative fence than chain 23 link, and I think Mike can attest that his landscape 24 architects, routinely receive voluminous catalogs of 167
1 all kinds of industrial fencing that either is 2 wrought iron or ornamental iron or a facsimile of 3 such. But I just wanted to remind the Commission 4 that you have the ability, through the Special Land 5 Use process, to require more than just a chain link 6 fence. 7 And I think too, to remind you, if you 8 consider the self storage facility that's to the east 9 of this property, closer to Haggerty Road, I believe 10 they do have a black ornamental iron, at least a gate 11 apparatus that they've employed there. 12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, they do. 13 Anything else? Mr. Avdoulos? 14 MEMBER AVDOULOS: I was going to 15 dovetail to Commissioner Shroyer. I don't know if he 16 was done yet or not. 17 MEMBER SHROYER: I'm not, but go 18 ahead. 19 MEMBER AVDOULOS: The fencing that was 20 one issue that I was going to look into, making it a 21 little bit more esthetic, especially in the front. 22 If we're going to have that whole self facade, 23 actually the way it looks now in the rendering, and 24 contrary to popular belief, I'm not a big proponent 168
1 of awnings, I don't like things attached to 2 buildings, but being a south application, you're 3 going to get a lot of sun there anyway, and I think 4 you're going to have to screen it somehow. And I 5 think the idea of having the third bay of windows, 6 gives it more of an office look rather than a 7 warehouse look. 8 The idea of having some kind of 9 ornamental iron in the front part of the building, or 10 even an application of brick and iron, something to 11 not give it that warehouse look, and then once it 12 turns to the sides, black vinyl fencing is fine. But 13 I think keeping in that character, where we enhance 14 the front and enhance the sides as the landscaping 15 turns, and then we could be more consistent along the 16 back. 17 But I think Commissioner Shroyer is 18 correct. The buildings are not obtrusive. I mean, 19 they appear to be very pleasant and low scale. And I 20 think that's going to benefit, at least the views, as 21 you go down Grand River. So I'm in agreement. 22 Thank you. 23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Shroyer, do you 24 want the floor back? 169
1 MEMBER SHROYER: Please. 2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If you wouldn't 3 mind, Mr. Ruyle. 4 Mr. Shroyer. 5 MEMBER SHROYER: Just in summary on 6 that, as I indicated, I would be willing to yield the 7 problem with the sloped roof if the landscaping was 8 enhanced. And also more specific on the fencing, in 9 particular the southern portion that faces 10 Grand River, if that entire sector ended up being a 11 decorative fence, wrought iron, something along that 12 line, and the gating be something other than a chain 13 link fence. And I assume you were going to do that. 14 MR. LEE: That's right. We were 15 going to, yes. 16 MEMBER SHROYER: And then I agree 17 with Commissioner Avdoulos, that once the landscaping 18 began on the sides, just black vinyl coated fence 19 would be adequate for me. And I don't think you're 20 talking much difference in cost, between buying a 21 slatted, you know, the metal things that go down 22 which, as I mentioned before, get lost and faded and 23 everything else. So with that I'll close. Thank 24 you. 170
1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Ruyle. 2 MEMBER RUYLE: Thank you, 3 Madam Chair. 4 Just a little follow-up that needs 5 clarification from the City, to help this gentleman, 6 I think. 7 This ordinance that we're dealing with 8 requires the pitched roof; correct? 9 MR. SCHMITT: Yes, it is a 10 requirement. 11 MEMBER RUYLE: Because it's a storage 12 facility. 13 MR. SCHMITT: Specific to storage 14 facilities. 15 MEMBER SHROYER: But it's also light 16 industrial; am I correct? 17 MR. SCHMITT: Yes. 18 MEMBER RUYLE: Then that tells me 19 that any building, including Laird Glass that's there 20 now, that gets built for light industrial and 21 everything else, can have a flat roof. 22 MR. SCHMITT: I believe so. The 23 requirement for the- 24 MEMBER RUYLE: (Interposing) So what 171
1 I'm saying is -- go ahead. 2 MR. SCHMITT: The requirement for the 3 pitched roof is specifically a Special Land Use 4 requirement for self storage units. 5 MEMBER RUYLE: Right. And so what 6 I'm saying is that, best case scenario, 99 percent of 7 the buildings that are going to be built in that area 8 in new condition, are going to have flat roofs. So I 9 would recommend that they do go before the ZBA and 10 get a flat roof variance because it would be more 11 conducive to the area. 12 Thank you, Madam Chair. 13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you, 14 Mr. Ruyle. 15 I have a couple of comments and maybe 16 Mr. -- I'm not sure who can address this, but it's 17 with regard to traffic. And I know -- I don't see 18 anyone from Mr. Arroyo's office, but Ms. McClain, or 19 Mr. Croy. 20 In Mr. Arroyo's letter of February 18, 21 he states that they did not request a change in the 22 width of 24 feet for the access drive, and the 23 driveway no longer meets the City's standards because 24 they changed that. 172
1 Are they changing it back to what met 2 the standards, Mr. Croy? It's Item Number 5 under 3 Access, that paragraph. 4 MR. CROY: Okay, thank you. 5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: He states that the 6 previously proposed design should be restored, 7 wherein the driveway throat tapered from 32 feet at 8 the end of the returns, to 24 feet at the parking lot 9 aisle. 10 MR. CROY: Are you asking me if the 11 Applicant is going to- 12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is he going back 13 to what he originally had, which would meet our City 14 standards for this, or is this what he has? 15 Did I miss something on the drawing? 16 MR. CROY: I think it's something the 17 Applicant can answer, but certainly it's a 18 requirement of one of the review letters, so it's 19 something that should be addressed. 20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do you understand 21 my question? 22 MR. LEE: I'm sorry, I don't. 23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. The 24 full-time access drive, you have redesigned that to a 173
1 uniform width of 24 feet since the last submission, 2 and that was not requested by our traffic 3 consultant. And by making that change, the driveway 4 no longer meets the City standards. 5 Ms. McClain, can you answer this or 6 somebody? Do you understand what I'm saying? 7 MS. McCLAIN: I understand what 8 you're saying. When the Plans came in and had been 9 changed -- previously you had shown it with the width 10 of 32 feet at the throat, and now it's showing 24. 11 And what we need to know is if you plan on changing 12 it back? If you do not change it back, it will 13 require a Design and Construction Standards waiver 14 from the City Council. 15 MR. HUHTA: Hi. My names is 16 Jeff Huhta with Nowak & Fraus Engineers. The simple 17 answer to that question is we'll revert it back to 18 the way you would like it. 19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay, thank you. 20 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Madam Chair? 21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, Mr. Avdoulos. 22 MEMBER AVDOULOS: I'm looking at Nowak 23 & Fraus SP-3. And it's hard to read, but there looks 24 to be a dimension at the throat of 32 feet, but 174
1 there's also a gutter elevation of 884.17. And I'm 2 not sure if that's what was changed back to 32 feet 3 or if that's the point in question. 4 MS. McCLAIN: Let's ask it of the 5 Applicant this way: Do you intend to meet the City 6 standards for the driveway at 32 feet; will you be 7 meeting that standard on your next set of Plans? 8 MR. HUHTA: Yes. 9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very 10 much, everyone. 11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. The second 12 traffic question is with regard to the proposed 13 162-foot same side driveway spacing, and our minimum 14 requirement is 275 feet. Is there anything that can 15 be done to meet our requirements? 16 Mr. Croy. 17 MR. CROY: I believe they have done 18 what they can to meet the same side requirements in 19 both directions. They cannot fully comply with the 20 same side spacing requirements. 21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Will that cause any 22 sort of problem with the amount of traffic that we 23 have on Grand River, and having been on 24 Grand River several times? 175
1 MR. CROY: Well, I believe the traffic 2 consultant is okay with the waiver. 3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. 4 MR. CROY: I would go on their
5 recommendation as far as any traffic concerns. 6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Maybe you could 7 explain this paragraph to me. 8 It appears that the 579 foot spacing between the 9 nearest drive east and west of the site, 10 together with the required driveway width, would 11 make some size of same side spacing waiver 12 necessary, regardless of where the proposed 13 drive might hypothetically be located. The 14 Applicant should be expected to explain, 15 however, why a driveway relocation to reduce the 16 size of the required waiver would be infeasible. 17 So I'd like to know what the traffic 18 engineer is talking about, and obviously he's not
19 here. 20 MR. CROY: They do need two driveways 21 to the site, two entrances. That's part of their 22 problem that they're working with. I guess, you 23 know, the option would be moving the two driveways 24 closer to each other, and I'm not sure if that's 176
1 feasible for the site that they're trying to develop. 2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. And we are 3 putting in deceleration taper lanes -- tapers, 4 rather? 5 MR. CROY: Yes. On the main drive. 6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: On the main drive, 7 but not on the access, emergency access. 8 MR. CROY: I believe that's correct. 9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: There's one more. 10 And you have the Letter of Agreement with regard to 11 the encroachment of the other property? 12 MR. CROY: They claim they do, yes. 13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I have one more. 14 This does require the new Storm Water Ordinance be 15 met; correct? 16 MR. CROY: Fully. In full compliance, 17 yes. 18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: The reason I asked 19 that, is because this does drain into the Bishop 20 District, and that's rather high quality. 21 MR. CROY: It's also considered a 22 regional detention. 23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: All right. I 24 don't really think I have any other questions at this 177
1 time. I just want to make sure that the ordinances 2 are met with regard to the traffic and to the storm 3 water. 4 I do have a comment. With all due 5 respect, that's not what you're going to build. 6 You're just giving us a drawing of what you would 7 like it to look like? 8 MR. LEE: No, it will look very much 9 like that. 10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Very much is not 11 the same as exactly that; correct? 12 MR. LEE: We will do everything we can 13 to make it look as much like that as we possibly can. 14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. Because I 15 also would like to see the more landscaping in the 16 front. We talked about that, in the front of the 17 building? 18 MR. LEE: Yes, we did. 19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. I think 20 the awnings are fine. I think this is an improvement 21 over Holcomb Industries, and I appreciate the fact 22 that you are willing to work with the City with 23 regard to the fencing, adding the berming, and I 24 think the building will look nice. 178
1 Is there any further discussion? 2 Mr. Evancoe. 3 MR. EVANCOE: Yes, Madam Chair. If 4 the Commission is inclined to ask for the awnings I'd 5 like to address that at such time. If you're looking 6 to not require that, then my concern won't matter. 7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You know, I don't 8 know if we can make it a requirement. I'm just 9 presuming that just by where they're facing, they're 10 going to get a lot of sun. And I assume you're 11 probably going to put awnings up for that purpose 12 alone. 13 MR. LEE: I like the looks of the 14 awnings. 15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I do too, but I 16 think this is all personal taste, I'm not sure if 17 it's something that should be at the table, but if 18 you'd like to expound on that. 19 MR. EVANCOE: Well, maybe I should 20 just explain what the concern is. The issue is that 21 when the building facades were reviewed by our facade 22 consultant, there were not awnings on there. And the 23 canvas awnings are a material that is listed in the 24 Facade Ordinance, and being that this a Region 1 179
1 building, you cannot have more than ten percent of 2 the facade as canvas awnings. So there's 3 calculations that have not been done to this point to 4 determine whether or not those awnings, as depicted 5 on the rendering, would conform to the Facade 6 Ordinance. 7 So if you wanted for them to provide 8 the awnings, you would need to grant a Section 9 9 Waiver, which they have not requested, but you could 10 do that as a part of your review tonight. So there 11 is an issue there about whether or not that complies. 12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Sir, would you 13 like to put awnings on your building? 14 MR. LEE: We will submit a Section 9 15 Waiver. 16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You could request 17 one from us. 18 MR. LEE: Yes, we would. I would like 19 to do that. 20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Then you would 21 request a Section 9 Waiver for the awnings? 22 MR. AVDOULOS: Is that just for 23 canvas, if they were metal or some other type of 24 material? 180
1 MR. EVANCOE: The ordinance only 2 lists canvas awnings as the material. 3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: That's the only one 4 we can use in Novi. 5 MR. AVDOULOS: So there are other 6 buildings though that have canopy-type structures 7 that may not have roofs on them, that may be open, or 8 there could be some kind of screening in lieu of an 9 awning. So I think -- do they request that Section 9 10 Waiver now at the preliminary stage, or do they just 11 look at what can be done and put something up that 12 may be similar? 13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Schultz, would 14 you like to say anything? 15 MR. SCHULTZ: Just a brief comment. 16 The requirement for the awnings I think is something 17 that the Planning Commission could impose if it 18 wanted to. It doesn't sound like you have to because 19 they're willing to do it. But there is a connection 20 between that and the pitch of the roof and all that 21 kind of stuff. I think that he would be within the 22 discretion. 23 I guess the question is, do you feel 24 comfortable enough tonight to make the decision as to 181
1 what you want to see, or do you want your facade 2 expert to review it some more and make 3 recommendations for materials? I get the impression 4 from the report that our facade people haven't had 5 that conversation as to what it ought to be yet. 6 You may like it, but you may not be 7 comfortable -- I'm not saying you're not, you but you 8 need to be comfortable before you make a final 9 decision on it. If you're not ready to, that's your 10 decision. 11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Can the Commission, 12 even though the facade person has not reviewed this 13 with an awning, can the Commission, if it so chooses, 14 just waive the facade waiver, I mean, just waive it 15 for them? 16 MR. SCHULTZ: If you're comfortable 17 with that decision. I went through the ordinance, 18 there's no Public Hearing or anything like that, it's 19 your call if you're comfortable with it. 20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Then I think that's 21 something that whoever the maker of the motion is, 22 can include in the motion and the Commission can 23 either vote for the waiver or not vote for the 24 waiver. It's very democratic. 182
1 Yes, Member Kocan. 2 MEMBER KOCAN: I think the only 3 other -- I mean this discussion, we like the awnings 4 because they have an esthetic appeal. And if we 5 don't do the awnings -- there's two things. If the 6 ZBA doesn't give a variance for not having the 7 pitched roofs, and they require a different kind of 8 roof, this conversation is null and void. Moot. 9 Other kinds of considerations. In 10 looking at the -- you know, if no awnings, then the 11 Novi Commerce Center at least had something different 12 to break up -- and I guess I would like maybe an 13 interpretation of the ordinance. What the Novi 14 Commerce Center has, which is a little bit farther 15 north, is it's a flat roof, but about every 20 or 30 16 feet, it has a brick column that comes up over the 17 top of the building about five feet, I'm guessing, 18 and that's about every 30, 40, 50 feet, and it 19 provides a break-up of the front of the building. 20 Now, if a developer were to do something like that, 21 does that then constitute a flat roof, or is it now 22 no longer a flat roof because you have- 23 MEMBER RUYLE: (Interposing) It's not 24 a pitched roof. 183
1 MEMBER KOCAN: It's not pitched. 2 Okay. The question is, it's got to be a pitched 3 roof. 4 Thank you, Mr. Ruyle. 5 MEMBER RUYLE: Madam Chair, I'd like 6 to make a motion that we extend the meeting for the 7 time needed to complete the Agenda, twelve-thirty. 8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. Is there a 9 second to the motion? 10 MEMBER KOCAN: Second. 11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: All in favor say 12 aye. 13 ALL MEMBERS: Aye. 14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Motion passes 15 unanimously. 16 You still have the floor, 17 Member Kocan. 18 MEMBER KOCAN: Let's take a stab at a 19 motion. Let's see where it goes. I'm going to break 20 it into two. I'm going to talk about the Special 21 Land Use first. 22 In the matter of Premium Self Storage 23 Site Plan 02-58A, motion to grant approval of the 24 Special Land Use, finding that this building is 184
1 compatible with adjacent uses. The proposed use is 2 listed among the provision of uses requiring a 3 Special Land Use in a Light Industrial District which 4 does not abut Residential. The hours of operation 5 are 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. The building meets the 6 ordinance with regard to noise and lighting. 7 That's my motion. 8 MEMBER RUYLE: Second. 9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: The motion has 10 been seconded by Mr. Ruyle. 11 Mr. Schultz. 12 MR. SCHULTZ: Is there any conditions
13 that the maker of the motion intends to attach that 14 aren't regular Site Plan conditions? In other words, 15 anything over and above what we can require under the 16 ordinance. Now is the time to make those in the 17 Special Land Use Motion. Fencing, extra landscaping, 18 now is the time, not in the next motion. 19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Not in the next 20 motion? 21 MR. SCHULTZ: The exercise of 22 discretion is coming now. The next one would be 23 approving the details of the Plan. 24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Then would you like 185
1 to continue the motion? 2 MEMBER KOCAN: Then I would like to 3 continue my motion. I took a breath and- 4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: The world changed. 5 MEMBER KOCAN: With the stipulation 6 that there be additional landscaping on the east and 7 west property lines, as well as in front of the 8 building. That an ornamental iron front gate/fencing 9 be in the front, as well as black vinyl fencing on 10 the sides and back. 11 Section 9 Facade Waiver, address that 12 here? 13 MEMBER SHROYER: He wants you to put the 14 galvanized fencing on the back and put the- 15 MEMBER KOCAN: My motion says- 16 MR. SCHULTZ: Section 9 is separate. 17 MEMBER KOCAN: I had landscaping on 18 the front, additional landscaping on the front and on 19 the east and west property lines. I think those were 20 the two main things. The other items can be added to 21 the Site Plan. 22 Who seconded it? 23 MEMBER RUYLE: Second. 24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Seconded by 186
1 Mr. Ruyle. 2 MEMBER KOCAN: Thank you. 3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is there any 4 further discussion? 5 (There was no further discussion 6 by Commission members.) 7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: This motion is on 8 the Special Land Use. If there isn't, Mr. Schmitt, 9 if you would please call the roll. 10 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, Madam Chair. 11 Commission Avdoulos. 12 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Yes. 13 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Kocan. 14 MEMBER KOCAN: Yes. 15 MR. SCHMITT: Chairperson Nagy. 16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes. 17 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Papp. 18 MEMBER PAPP: Yes. 19 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Ruyle? 20 MEMBER RUYLE: Yes. 21 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Shroyer? 22 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 23 MR. SCHMITT: Motion passes 6 to 0. 24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. 187
1 MEMBER KOCAN: Continuing. Second 2 motion. 3 In the matter of Premium Self 4 Storage, Site Plan 02-58A, motion to grant approval 5 of the Preliminary Site Plan and the Storm Water 6 Management Plan based on the Plan, is in full 7 compliance with the Storm Water Ordinance, subject to 8 a ZBA variance for not having pitched roofs on the 9 self storage buildings in order to match the front 10 building, the Planning Commission waiver of the same 11 side driveway spacing as a full service access drive 12 which serves as a secondary entrance is required. 13 Considering that if canvas awnings as requested by 14 the Planning Commission exceeds ten percent of the
15 facade, the Planning Commission grants a Section 9 16 Facade Waiver. Subject to any additional conditions 17 and items listed in the staff and consultant review 18 letters. 19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is there a second 20 to the motion? 21 MEMBER PAPP: Second. 22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Second to the 23 motion by Mr. Papp. 24 Mr. Evancoe? 188
1 MR. EVANCOE: Just a question on the 2 motion. If perhaps you want to nail down a little 3 bit more about the awnings. If that's exactly the 4 type of awnings you would like to see. You may want 5 to refer to the exhibit that was displayed as to 6 color and type. 7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: That's a very good 8 point. 9 MR. SCHULTZ: We ask again, that 10 administratively that it be reviewed and approved -- 11 or at least reviewed and commented on by our facade 12 consultant. 13 MEMBER KOCAN: Okay then, we will add 14 the facade, with the awnings as presented to us in 15 their booklet, because there is a rendition under Tab 16 Number 1, as well as a reviewed by the City facade 17 consultant. 18 MR. SCHULTZ: Materials and 19 construction and those kind of people. 20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. Do you 21 accept the amendment? 22 MEMBER PAPP: I accept. 23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Any other comments 24 from anyone? 189
1 MEMBER KOCAN: I don't want to drag 2 this out. Question: Again, reading literally the 3 ordinance. 4 No building or structure other than the 5 manager's quarters shall exceed 15 feet- 6 Forget it, that's pitched roof. 7 The manager's quarters though, that 8 32,000 square foot building, would that be considered 9 the manager's quarters? 10 MR. SCHMITT: No. Nice try. 11 MEMBER KOCAN: I was going to move in. 12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Are we ready to 13 have roll call? 14 Mr. Schmitt. 15 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, Madam Chair. 16 Commissioner Kocan. 17 MEMBER KOCAN: Yes. 18 MR. SCHMITT: Chairperson Nagy. 19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes. 20 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Papp. 21 MEMBER PAPP: Yes. 22 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Ruyle. 23 MEMBER RUYLE: Yes. 24 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Shroyer. 190
1 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 2 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Avdoulos. 3 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Yes. 4 MR. SCHMITT: Motion passes 6 to 0. 5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very 6 much. 7 MR. SCHULTZ: I apologize for this, 8 but I should have caught the fact that the Special 9 Land Use, the first motion, did not also make it 10 subject to a ZBA approval. If we could have another 11 motion just to clarify that. It should also -- we 12 don't want them having Special Land Use hanging out 13 there if they never get the height variance. 14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Are you talking 15 about the pitched roof, the ZBA variance for not 16 pitched roofs? 17 MEMBER KOCAN: Aren't we just 18 approving the use? 19 MR. SCHULTZ: You approve the use, do 20 you want that Special Land Use hanging out there if 21 the ZBA says no to the Plan? 22 MEMBER KOCAN: Then they have to redo 23 their Site Plan. That's my interpretation. The use 24 is approved as a self storage facility in a I-1 191
1 District. If the Site Plan doesn't comply, then they 2 have to come back. 3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay? 4 MR. SCHULTZ: Okay. 5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very 6 much. 7 7. Island Lake of Novi, Phase 4B1, SP 02-43 8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Our next Public 9 Hearing is a Public Hearing at the request of Toll 10 Brothers for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan for 11 site condominiums. The subject property is located 12 in Section 19 on the north side of Ten Mile Road 13 between Napier and Wixom Roads. The developer 14 proposes 76 detached single family homes in the 15 Residential Acreage District. 16 Ms. McBeth. 17 MS. McBETH: Thank you, Madam Chair. 18 I'll put an aerial photo up on the 19 board to display the location of this phase of the 20 development. 21 And again, the subject property is 22 outlined in blue. It is Phase 4B2 of the Island Lake 23 Development. That's on the north side of Ten Mile 24 Road, and that is east of Napier Road and west of 192
1 Wixom Road. The area we're looking at is outlined in 2 blue. 3 So the aerial photo shows that the 4 site is currently vacant land. To the west is vacant 5 land, also fronting on Ten Mile Road as well as on 6 Napier Road. To the north and to the northeast are 7 Phases 4A and 5A within the Island Lake Development, 8 which were approved for the construction of single 9 family homes. To the east is a vacant parcel of land 10 which fronts on Ten Mile Road, and then further to 11 the east is the parcel of land we expect is going to 12 be developed with the Oak Pointe Church. To the 13 south across Ten Mile Road is the Links of Novi Golf 14 Course. 15 The Master Plan showing the property, 16 again outlined in blue, shows that the subject 17 property is Master Planned for residential uses. 18 Just slightly to the south, the Master Plan shows 19 that the property is Planned for a golf course. 20 And the zoning map shows that the 21 property is zoned RA, Residential Acreage, as are the 22 surrounding properties. 23 I'll display a small version of the 24 Site Plan for you. I know that there's a large 193
1 version in front of me here. Ten Mile Road is again 2 on the bottom part of the page. The phase that we're 3 looking at is in bold on this Plan. The submitted 4 Plans propose a development of 76 single family 5 detached dwelling units, associated road system, and 6 parks that were envisioned in the amended RUD 7 Agreement for Island Lake. The RUD Agreement was 8 modified by City Council in December of 2002 for this 9 area, to approve adjustments for locations of the 10 streets; to the park areas, stub street locations. 11 I'm going to highlight just a couple 12 of the items from the review letters that were 13 provided from the City staff and consultants to the 14 Planning Commission, for their consideration. 15 The Planning Review letter asked for a 16 Planning Commission clarification of stipulations of 17 the originally approved RUD Agreement. The approved 18 RUD Agreement specifies that building setbacks on 19 individual lots will vary depending on the lot width 20 that is provided. And that is typical of Zoning 21 Ordinances to do that. 22 The RUD Agreement also states that 23 homes will be grouped in neighborhoods with a common 24 theme. There may be a need for the Planning 194
1 Commission to mediate between these two concerns. 2 The RUD Agreement specifies that lots 3 110 feet or wider, will have greater building 4 setbacks than those that are only 90 feet in width. 5 The Site Plan for Phase 4B1 provides lot widths for 6 both 96 feet and the 120 foot range. These lots are 7 mixed throughout the neighborhood without any 8 defined separation within the neighborhood. And I'm 9 going to put up a small map that displays some of the 10 issues that were highlighted in the Birchler-Arroyo 11 Review, and you can almost see that some of these 12 lots are highlighted with yellow and some are 13 highlighted with green. But the lots that are 14 designated at 120 feet in width that do provide the 15 greater setbacks as indicated in the RUD Agreement 16 are shown in yellow, and you can almost see that 17 these are those locations. Those are the ones that 18 do provide the greater setbacks that the RUD calls 19 for. 20 Lots that are designated as 110 feet 21 that provide lesser setbacks than the ordinance 22 requires, are identified in green and for some reason 23 that shows up even worse, this location, this 24 location, and that location have a deficiency in the 195
1 setbacks. 2 The Applicant has indicated that 3 there's a desire to maintain the smaller building 4 setbacks on these lots -- most of those are pie 5 shaped lots -- to allow the lots to be developed with 6 homes that would be consistent in size and appearance 7 with the other homes within this neighborhood or this 8 phase of development. 9 The dilemma lies in the question of 10 whether the lots should be widened at the front of 11 the parcels in those areas, so that adequate setbacks 12 can be provided for those lots which would result in 13 the appearance from the road that the homes are set 14 back farther apart, or whether the smaller but 15 consistent setbacks should be provided throughout the 16 entire development. 17 Moving on. There were no wetlands to 18 review for this proposal, as the Applicant received a 19 Wetlands Permit from the Planning Commission last 20 summer to fill a non essential wetland in an area 21 near Ten Mile Road. No Woodlands exist on this area 22 of the site. The Landscaping and Engineering Reviews 23 both indicated only minor comments which may be 24 addressed at the time of Final Site Plan Review. 196
1 The Traffic, Engineering and Fire 2 Reviews, indicated comments which may be addressed at 3 the time of Final Site Plan Review, and I believe 4 they may have already been addressed on the Plans 5 that were most recently submitted. Both of those 6 indicated that the temporary T turn-around that is 7 proposed for the end of Langley Court needs to be 8 modified to meet the City's design and construction 9 standards. 10 And as a matter of information, the 11 Applicant has provided the City with a schedule, a 12 projected schedule of submittal of Plans that is near 13 the very back of the packet. I think it's the last 14 page or second to last page, with a map provided from 15 the City that shows the phasing lines for your 16 information. Thank you. 17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Ms. McBeth. 18 MS. McBETH: Yes. 19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If you could just 20 explain to us a little slower, and maybe by taking 21 the big map and pointing to it, about the lot 22 deficiencies with the setbacks, side yard setbacks. 23 We got kind of confused. 24 MS. McBETH: Sure. I do apologize. 197
1 It's a little bit confusing. This is where the 2 dilemma is. 3 These lots are shaped more like pieces 4 of a pie. The front yard is usually the area where 5 you measure the lot width. So the area along the 6 road is where you usually measure the lot width. 7 Those turn out to be wider at the front than they are 8 in the back. And the homes that are indicated on 9 some of these Plans, show that they want to build a 10 home that is typical in size to the other homes in 11 the neighborhood. So in order to fit a home on those 12 pieces of property, it's got to be wider in the front 13 and narrower on the back. 14 What they're requesting, really, is 15 sort of an interpretation that they can use the 16 dimension across the rear of the property line as 17 opposed to the front in making their determination 18 that the side yard setbacks will be provided for the 19 narrower lot width. 20 And I'm not sure if that clarifies the 21 question. I think the Applicant might also want to 22 speak to that question as well. 23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think I 24 understood what you said. 198
1 MR. EVANCOE: If I may interject just 2 briefly. Just so everybody knows. What we're 3 talking about is the side yard setbacks. We're not 4 looking at front or rear. 5 MS. McBETH: And we are talking about 6 four lots in total that appear that they don't meet 7 the standard for setbacks, because they're wider 8 along the front, we would expect a larger setback for 9 those lots. 10 MEMBER KOCAN: Point of information? 11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Sure. 12 MEMBER KOCAN: The only difference in 13 the side yard setback is five feet; is that correct? 14 MS. McBETH: Yes. Let me get this 15 out so I can tell you exactly. 16 For the wider lot, for lots that are 17 90 feet or in the 90-foot range, we would expect 30 18 feet for the total of the two side yards, ten feet on 19 the least side. 20 For lots that are 110 feet to 150 21 feet, we would expect a total of 40 feet for the 22 combined total side yards, with 15 feet on the least 23 side. 24 MEMBER KOCAN: But because of the 199
1 shape of the lot, they would all be able to meet the 2 minimum 30 feet, houses put on those lots. 3 MS. McBETH: That is correct. 4 MEMBER KOCAN: Thank you. 5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very 6 much. 7 Would the Applicant like to make any 8 comments? 9 MR. BOSHAW: Thank you. My name is 10 Ron Boshaw, B-o-s-h-a-w, Toll Brothers. Thank you 11 very much, Ms. McBeth, for the description of this 12 phase of the properties. It was very complete. The 13 home style that we are building here is consistent 14 with the home style that we are building on what 15 we're calling the north side of the lake. 2500 to 16 3500 square foot homes, ranging in price from 450,000 17 to 600,000 plus or minus. The lots are approximately 18 14,000 square feet in size, and a minimum of 96 feet 19 in width at the setback. 20 And unless there is a -- again, I 21 think Ms. McBeth's explanation was right on, so I 22 don't need to say anything further, but if you have 23 any questions for us, myself or our development 24 manager, Kevin Sullivan, we'll be happy to answer 200
1 them. 2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very 3 much. 4 This is a Public Hearing and does 5 anyone in the audience wish to address the Commission 6 regarding this site? 7 (There was no response from the 8 audience.) 9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Seeing no one, I 10 will close -- I always forget. Do we have any 11 correspondence, Madam Secretary? 12 MEMBER KOCAN: Yes, we do. I have 13 two letters. Actually, it's the same letter twice, 14 but it's from a husband and wife. John, I think it's 15 C-a-r-b-o-t-t, and Deborah C-a-r-b-o-t-t, at 16 25490 Birchwood. They object to the proposal. 17 Number one, negative effect on ground water supply to 18 neighboring water wells. Depressions, six inches to 19 eight inches deep are forming in our backyard and 20 neighbors'. They're missing tall screening plantings 21 between home and development along the road edge and 22 the island circle. 23 They felt that there's not enough
24 information. They felt they did not have enough lead 201
1 time, and would have liked to have more room for 2 comments. 3 That's all I have. 4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Now I 5 will close the Public Hearing and turn it over to the 6 Commission. 7 Member Kocan. 8 MEMBER KOCAN: Picking up where the 9 letters talked about the berming. I did not drive 10 past the site and I should have done that. Because 11 when I looked at your Canabe Park and your 12 Langley Park, I see berms that are 14 feet tall. Is 13 that an existing condition of the land? 14 MR. SULLIVAN: A lot of these berms 15 we've created- 16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Sullivan? 17 MR. SULLIVAN: I'm sorry. Kevin 18 Sullivan. 19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Could you take the 20 hand mike? 21 MR. SULLIVAN: Kevin Sullivan, Toll 22 Brothers. S-u-l-l-i-v-a-n. 23 Most of the berms here are going to be 24 created. And as we have done in the past throughout 202
1 the site, we've tried to create the largest berms we 2 can possibly fit in for screening, not only along 3 Wixom Road, but in the back along Napier Road. 4 Wherever we can do the berms, we try to maximize the 5 height as well as the plantings. The plantings have 6 far exceeded -- as we get started on the Landscape 7 Plan, we end up in-filling a lot of the additional 8 landscaping. 9 MEMBER KOCAN: My concern is you're 10 calling it a park, but it's a 14-foot tall berm. 11 That is not a park, unless it's a ski hill, but 12 there's no place to stop your skiing. So I'm 13 concerned about traffic and visibility. I'm a 14 proponent of berms, but I'm wondering if this berm 15 isn't too tall. 16 And continuing with that, our 17 requirement is very specific that there needs to be 18 landscaped buffers installed and maintained along the 19 entire property line abutting the right-of-way, and 20 your berm ends east of that property line where the 21 detention/retention basin is. That does not comply 22 with the ordinance. The entire right-of-way has to 23 be bermed and screened. 24 So I'm looking for a change in that 203
1 location, and then how does that change affect the 2 detention basin? If you want to speak to that. 3 MR. SULLIVAN: We've had this 4 conversation with Mr. McGinnis today -- he did with 5 our engineer. We talked about possibly moving this 6 detention basin back around and continuing that berm 7 further down. And at this point we don't really see 8 any problem with continuing that berm further. 9 With regards to calling these things 10 parks, these aren't really the designated parks that 11 we're required to have within the Island Lake 12 Development. We're just identifying areas is all. 13 It's not a play park, no. The parks up in here, 14 these are the intended parks that are part of the 15 RUD, are part of the open space. 16 MEMBER KOCAN: With regard to the 17 turnaround, is it going to be a temporary turnaround? 18 It's my understanding that where the fire chief is 19 concerned is at an area which could eventually be 20 developed as additional residential; correct? 21 MR. SULLIVAN: That's correct. This 22 ten acre piece now has been brought before you 23 recently to be developed. 24 MEMBER KOCAN: To the Master Plan 204
1 Committee. 2 MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. I think that's 3 correct. 4 MEMBER KOCAN: I haven't seen it yet. 5 MR. SULLIVAN: Conrad brought that to 6 you. 7 MEMBER RUYLE: Conrad brought it to 8 us. It's owned by the Assembly of God, State of 9 Michigan Headquarters, and it's right next to the 10 church -- in between the church and their property, 11 and that's where the stubs -- they're going to 12 utilize the stub streets to build more streets. 13 MEMBER KOCAN: Residential. 14 MEMBER RUYLE: Yes. All residential. 15 I think it's 26 lots -- or 16 lots, that's what it 16 was. Thank you. 17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: It hasn't come 18 before the Commission. 19 MEMBER RUYLE: No. It just came 20 before the Master Planning Committee. 21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And we did make a 22 recommendation in favor. 23 MEMBER KOCAN: I just hear rumors. 24 There's still 34 trees that are 205
1 required for the woodland replacement. Is there a 2 plan for those 34 trees? 3 MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, there is a plan. 4 Again, we've far exceeded the planting requirements 5 so far. We continue to plant. Originally, going 6 back to the north side, we had an agreement to do 7 some tree banking because the lack of trees on the 8 south side, and the abundance of trees on the north 9 side, so we did our replacements. We're going to 10 bring those down into this phase. 11 MEMBER KOCAN: Okay. With regard to 12 the two types of lots, the 96-foot wide and 120-foot 13 wide, I really don't have a problem with 14 standardizing the setbacks, the side yard setbacks 15 throughout the subdivision, recognizing that these 16 are pie shaped lots and noting that their 17 configurations are significantly different from a 18 rectangular lot. 19 My main concern is, I understand that 20 we don't have an approved RUD Amendment from the 21 City Council at this point. So can we even act on 22 this tonight? 23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Schultz. 24 MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you, Madam Chair. 206
1 We did raise this issue earlier today. 2 We received the Draft Agreement last week. We would 3 expect that that Agreement would go to City Council, 4 if everything goes right, at the March 17 meeting. 5 We did check the calendar for when the next available 6 Planning Commission meeting would be, since the 7 proponent has some time issues, and that would be the 8 March 26 meeting. 9 Our idea was if we held a hearing, as 10 we have, we've given the proponent the comments, you 11 would ask the proponent to have a plan ready to go 12 that met the comments for the March 26 meeting. 13 So, yes, we do not have an approved 14 RUD Agreement, although Council did approve the Plan 15 and the concept. This is the language, this is the 16 contract as opposed to the concept which has been 17 approved. 18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Ruyle, did you 19 want to make a comment? 20 MEMBER RUYLE: Correct me if I'm 21 wrong, Mr. Schultz, but can we not make it part of 22 the motion subject to the approval of the City 23 attorney and the RUD Agreement? 24 MR. SCHULTZ: Well, the RUD Agreement 207
1 will now -- the contract will now go back to 2 City Council. The question will be are you getting a 3 little ahead of yourself if the Council doesn't 4 actually approve that written agreement. 5 MEMBER RUYLE: As I said, subject to 6 Council approval then, if we put it in our motion. 7 MR. SCHULTZ: We would recommend 8 against that. But we would ask that it then be at 9 the next available meeting on the 26th. 10 MEMBER KOCAN: My only comment to 11 that is then I would want to extend the Public 12 Hearing, because if there's another Plan that comes 13 before the Planning Commission, I want to afford the 14 audience the opportunity to be able to speak to that 15 if there is a change. So that would be my request. 16 MR. SCHULTZ: To the Chair, if we do 17 that, I would just ask again, when the motion comes 18 up, that that Public Hearing which was closed, be 19 reopened set for that date certain, March 26, so we 20 don't end up having to readvertise and cause a delay. 21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Now, here's a 22 question. Excuse me. Why did we make these people 23 stay all this time then? Maybe we should have just 24 told them to come back on the 26th. 208
1 MR. SCHULTZ: I think the idea was to 2 have the developer get the comments of the Planning 3 Commission as to what changes might be required, so 4 that the meeting on the 26th would presumably be them 5 indicating their compliance with the comments. 6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. Do we have 7 any other comments? 8 Mr. Avdoulos, do you have any 9 comments? You're thinking. 10 Mr. Ruyle? 11 MEMBER RUYLE: It looks fine to me, 12 Madam Chair. 13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Member Kocan? 14 Well, I would like -- the Chair would 15 entertain a motion of some sort indicating that we'll 16 reopen and continue the Public Hearing on March 26. 17 And what we can do is, what, table this? 18 MR. SCHMITT: The motion would reopen 19 the Public Hearing and then table to that date. 20 Table action until that date. 21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Reopen the Public 22 Hearing and- 23 MEMBER RUYLE: So moved. 23 MEMBER KOCAN: Second. 24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: There's been a 209
1 motion made to reopen the Public Hearing and to 2 continue this on March 26. 3 MEMBER KOCAN: So then do we also 4 need a motion to table or was that handled all in the 5 one motion? 6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: It will be tabled 7 to March 26. 8 MEMBER RUYLE: So moved. 9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is there any 10 further discussion? 11 Mr. Shroyer. 12 MEMBER SHROYER: Just primarily a 13 question. If we do it in that order, correct me if 14 I'm wrong, we do have to readvertise again. 15 MR. SCHULTZ: No. If we set it to a 16 date certain, we don't need to readvertise. Frankly, 17 by the 26th, we probably can readvertise it. 18 MEMBER SHROYER: I would request that 19 we do. I think it's only fair to the citizens of 20 Novi that it be reopened. Oh, I've just been handed 21 a note to ask if Council will have it approved by 22 that date? 23 MR. SCHULTZ: That's really what 24 we're getting at. 210
1 MEMBER SHROYER: Because it's up to 2 them for review, and we have to assume that they're 3 going to approve it. 4 MR. SCHULTZ: From my perspective, 5 you've held a Public Hearing. The changes that 6 you've indicated to the developer are here on the 7 record at this Public Hearing. Presumably, what 8 you're going to get from the developer is something 9 that meets those comments, that the public could have 10 been here to see. 11 I'm not sure I can see the reason to 12 have the second Public Hearing, but if that is the 13 Commission's pleasure, then legally you are okay if 14 you do that. Pick a date here at this Public Hearing 15 and pick a date certain, you are not obligated to 16 renotice. 17 MEMBER SHROYER: Wouldn't we be 18 better to reopen the Public Hearing right now and not 19 close it until the next meeting? 20 MR. SCHULTZ: That's what you would 21 be doing. The motion on the table is to reopen the 22 Public Hearing and then table the matter until the 23 26th, a date certain. 24 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. Can I make 211
1 the motion to supersede the one that's currently on 2 the table then. 3 MEMBER KOCAN: That is the motion on 4 the table. 5 MEMBER SHROYER: Oh, that is the 6 motion? 7 MR. SCHULTZ: That is the one. 8 MEMBER SHROYER: I thought we were 9 reopening it on the 26th. 10 MR. SCHULTZ: No. We're reopening it 11 now. 12 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. Thank you. 13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Does anyone have 14 any further comments? We don't need to belabor this 15 point. Does everybody understand what we're doing 16 here? 17 The motion is to reopen the Public 18 Hearing and to table it to March 26, 2003. Okay. 19 All right, we're all on the same page? Okay. 20 If we could please call the roll, 21 Ms. McBeth. 22 MS. McBETH: Thank you. 23 Chairperson Nagy. 24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes. 212
1 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Papp. 2 MEMBER PAPP: Yes. 3 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Ruyle. 4 MEMBER RUYLE: Yes. 5 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Shroyer. 6 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 7 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Avdoulos. 8 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Yes. 9 MS. McBETH: And Commissioner Kocan. 10 MEMBER KOCAN: Yes. 11 MS. McBETH: Motion passes six to 0. 12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: See you on the 13 26th. 14 MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION 15 1. Planning Commission Budget 16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: For Matters for 17 Consideration, our first item on the Agenda is the 18 Planning Commission Budget. 19 Member Kocan. 20 MEMBER KOCAN: Thank you. I was 21 designated to speak on behalf of the Budget 22 Committee. Member Ruyle and I are members, as well 23 as Member Sprague and Member Paul who are not here. 24 We wanted to give the Planning 213
1 Commission an opportunity to look at this budget at 2 least twice, and that's why it's before you tonight. 3 So I'm looking for whatever projects that you have, 4 whatever, you know, we talked about what our 5 priorities are, and if there are other priorities 6 that we haven't thought of, we need to hear that. We 7 also did get some input from the Master Plan 8 Committee who stated they have a number of reports. 9 I think my biggest concern is, and you 10 did receive a letter, an additional letter either 11 Monday or Tuesday night dated April 19th. And just 12 so that you know what happened with the budget, last 13 year we requested about $96,000 worth of studies. In 14 April of 2002, our budget was cut back to $42,000. 15 And the four items that are in April 19th letter, are 16 those projects and those reports that the staff, City 17 staff, felt were the most important. This was 18 approved -- well, I don't know if it was approved, it 19 was just memoed, cited to the Mayor and City Council 20 members. Yes, our budget was revised. 21 The thought is that it is believed 22 that only about $10,000 of that $42,000 for the 23 studies will be spent this year, and the proposal was 24 to carry over the additional 32,000 to complete those 214
1 four projects next year. My concern is if we have a 2 budget of $42,000 this year and there's projects that 3 we need to get done, as well as additional studies 4 that need to be done in order for the Master Plan 5 Committee to complete the Master Plan next spring,
6 I think we need to look at that. In the Budget 7 Committee we looked at just moving the 32,000 to next 8 year. I'm now questioning that decision, and I would 9 like feedback from the rest of the Planning 10 Commission. 11 I see that Mr. Evancoe has a comment 12 to make. 13 We also added -- before you speak, 14 Mr. Evancoe -- we added in an environmental study 15 that was on our priority list from last year and the 16 year before. And we also added, we felt it was very 17 important that this Planning Commission lacked 18 training and development, and we feel it's very 19 important. And I'm going to state I think 20 particularly, and I don't mean this to be -- what's 21 the word -- offensive to the Planning Department, but 22 with more Planning Reviews being done in-house, I 23 think it's even more important that we all get out 24 and get different opinions on what's happening out in 215
1 other parts of the community. 2 So I think it is a real priority, and 3 that's why we put Master Plan first, and then 4 training and development. Development Review Process 5 and Public Outreach in the Objectives. We're looking 6 for feedback. So if you have any questions, please 7 question. If you have comments, I know Mr. Evancoe 8 has a comment. 9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Evancoe. 10 MR. EVANCOE: Thank you. Just a 11 couple of points I wanted to make. First of all, no 12 offense taken whatsoever. In fact, full agreement. 13 This is a time when both the staff and the Commission 14 needs to get all the training possible. And it was 15 unfortunate that the budget last year didn't allow 16 for that to occur, and I'm hopeful, as you are, that 17 we can get some money appropriated for training in 18 the coming year. So we'll keep our fingers crossed 19 on that and put it forth. 20 The $42,000 that was approved by the 21 Council last year, was for the Growth Management 22 Plan, and within that Growth Management Plan there 23 were four deliverables that were promised, one was 24 the -- and these are all studies that have been on 216
1 your schedule for several years as part of the 2 five-year update. And I'm going by memory, but there 3 was the Economic Base Analysis, the Thoroughfare Plan 4 Study, the Water and Sewer Master Plan Study, and one 5 other that's slipping my mind. 6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Fiscal Analysis. 7 MR. EVANCOE: Fiscal Analysis, right. 8 And those were all components of the Growth 9 Management Plan, which is a project that was 10 identified by the City Council that they wanted 11 accomplished. 12 What we did is we, you know, and it's 13 just an estimate. We estimated that provided that 14 that project goes forward -- which is not entirely 15 certain because that's going to be a topic at the 16 next City Council meeting as to philosophy and 17 whether that's still indeed a goal. But assuming it 18 goes forward, we're estimating that we would spend 19 about $10,000 by the end of this fiscal year, and 20 that's where the $32,100 comes from, as a proposed 21 carryover to next year to complete the Growth 22 Management Plan. 23 So I just wanted to -- in case that 24 was not understood, I wanted to clarify. 217
1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If I could just 2 comment. One of the things that having been on the 3 Planning Commission, at this point the longest of 4 anyone, we've had a lot of studies where we've 5 allotted money and the studies were never completed 6 from one year to the next. And I think that at the 7 rate this Planning Commission is working, with two 8 Master Planning Committee meetings a month, and two 9 Implementation meetings a month, I think we're 10 striving to make sure that our focus is that we will 11 have the Master Plan approved. And I think that's 12 where the Budget Committee is coming from. 13 Are there any other comments, because 14 I think a lot of comments after reading this can be 15 addressed via e-mail or something, about the budget. 16 Mr. Shroyer. 17 MEMBER SHROYER: I'll just make two 18 very quick ones. First of all, being on the Master 19 Plan and Zoning Committees, and knowing that we have 20 been asking for reports for some time, and we need 21 them, especially in order to meet our goal of having 22 a new Plan ready by May of 2004, a bird in a hand is 23 worth two in the bush. If we have the money 24 allocated right now, we need to go forward with it. 218
1 Who knows what will happen with the state of the 2 business currently and economic situation, that 3 budget cuts may come any day now. So I don't feel 4 comfortable at all about carrying money over to next 5 year, hoping that it will be carried over to next 6 year. 7 The second item: I would like to 8 address the recommendation on the worksheet for the 9 training in regard to the conferences. Just a quick 10 comment. The recommendation was two members for the 11 American Planning Conference, and the six for the 12 fall conference, MSP Fall Conference. That totals 13 eight, which means that one Planning Commissioner 14 would not be able to attend the conference. I'd 15 rather see us look at the possibility of three for 16 the American Planning Conference, which would be one 17 out of each seniority group, and then the six that do 18 not attend that one, would have the first option for 19 the MSP Conference in the fall. 20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think that kind 21 of a suggestion has been made in the past. So I 22 think your committee ought to talk about it again. 23 MEMBER KOCAN: I was just going to 24 give away $2,000, but I'll push for it all. 219
1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Any other 2 comments? 3 MEMBER KOCAN: I think we need to 4 make a determination whether it's tonight or when we 5 actually -- well, probably when we approve our 6 budget. We do need to, if what I'm hearing, we need 7 to hopefully spend that 42,000, and whether it needs 8 to be outsourced, or additional job assignments 9 given, we would like to try to complete as much as 10 possible this year. Because the Master Plan 11 Committee -- the Thoroughfare Plan is a duplicate, 12 but Natural Features is a little bit different, or 13 does that tie in with the Environmental Study? 14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think that's a 15 little different than the Environmental Study, if I 16 recall correctly. And isn't there something that 17 Oakland County has as well? 18 MR. EVANCOE: I was just going to 19 mention that. The ranking of Environmental Area 20 Studies should be very easy now, because Oakland 21 County contracted with Michigan State to do a 22 county-wide environmental ranking. They've actually 23 taken Novi and other communities, and given them 24 three priorities, and it's really a good study they 220
1 did. We may be able to adopt that or tweak it 2 slightly. 3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think that 4 encompasses what we were talking about, and if you 5 look at the various studies that we have requested, 6 well, some of them we've gotten them already in the 7 Master Planning Committee. There's a lot- 8 MEMBER KOCAN: (Interposing) I just 9 want to confirm that your Natural Features request 10 that comply with our Standard of Performance B on the 11 first page, saying: 12 Assess the physical characteristics of the 13 community, ranking those areas of environmental 14 sensitivity for determination for use as park 15 land or development. 16 Would that fulfill your Natural 17 Features Study? 18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: No. I don't think 19 that's at all what Natural Features means. Natural 20 Features is different than that, what you said. 21 MEMBER KOCAN: With the environmental 22 sensitivity. 23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Right. And park 24 land. 221
1 MEMBER KOCAN: Then we need to know 2 exactly what it is you're looking for, so that the 3 staff can assign a price tag to it. 4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: All right. I think 5 we already made a list, and I think Mr. Schmitt, you 6 had sent a letter and there was a list of studies 7 that were already done, and so maybe we could get 8 that and incorporate it into that. 9 MEMBER SHROYER: Some might just need 10 to be updated. 11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yeah, just updated, 12 and then maybe with the updates, we can bring it back 13 to the Commission to pass the budget. And do you 14 have an anticipated date for that? 15 MEMBER KOCAN: We have a date for the 16 Budget meeting, a week from Friday. We're going to 17 talk about the date because right now it's 7:15 a.m., 18 which is awfully early, but we plan to meet to try to 19 have this at the next Planning Commission meeting. 20 So we need, you know, we will have, I believe Mr. 21 Evancoe at that meeting. We did not have him at the 22 last meeting, but we need somebody from staff to be 23 able to work with us and assign numbers, as well as 24 make sure we have the amount of money in for charts 222
1 and printing and maps and to ensure that we have 2 enough money to support the Planning Commission. 3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Are there any other 4 comments? Are we done with that item? 5 MEMBER KOCAN: That's all. Thank 6 you. 7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very much 8 for your update. 9 2. Letter Received from Alan and Kathleen Bond 10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I would just like 11 to mention that I put under Matters for 12 Consideration, I received a later from Alan and 13 Kathleen Bond. And they are also writing on behalf 14 of their two neighbors, Richard Herbel and Chris and 15 Sylvia Walsh. And they're the three homeowners on 16 Wixom Road that are being affected by the Catholic 17 Central development. They are going to be coming to 18 the Master Plan and Zoning Committee meetings and 19 they are going to be requesting a Zoning and 20 Master Plan change. 21 And what we have is that -- when we 22 ask for Master Plan and rezoning, then we have to get 23 a traffic impact study. And what these people have 24 written is that we have an ability as Planning 223
1 Commissioners to waive the Traffic Impact Study. 2 We've had one done by Catholic Central, one done by 3 Promenade. And I just wanted to make all of you 4 privy to this. 5 And I assume that the recommendation, 6 Mr. Schultz, would be when they come to the 7 Master Plan Committee, do we have to make the 8 recommendation to waive or not waive the Traffic 9 Study before they come? Because our Zoning Ordinance 10 -- I mean, the ordinance says: 11 The requirement for a Traffic Impact Study or 12 the study elements with the Traffic Impact Study 13 contents, may be waived/modified by the Planning 14 Commission. Reasons for the waiver or 15 modification shall be documented. Factors to be 16 considered include- 17 And then they have three. 18 MR. SCHULTZ: Can you just tell me 19 which section? 20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You know what, I 21 don't know. It's the City -- here. 22 Let me just state that there is one of 23 the reasons being a similar Traffic Study was 24 previously prepared for the site and is still 224
1 considered applicable. 2 MR. SCHULTZ: I think I can at least 3 say it's probably something that the Commission as a 4 whole would do. The Master Plan Committee can do its 5 investigation and review without that if it's 6 comfortable. 7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Can we talk about 8 that now and make that motion now? 9 MR. SCHULTZ: For the full Commission 10 to do it? I think we probably ought to wait and see 11 what comes out of the Master Plan Committee. The 12 Master Plan Committee can do its due diligence on 13 this issue, without the Traffic Plan if it wants to 14 do that. 15 The Commission, as a whole, when that 16 recommendation comes forward, will have to decide 17 whether it wants the full Traffic Plan. And it will 18 have a better- 19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: (Interposing) But 20 in order for them to come to the Master Plan 21 Committee, as I understood it, they have to bring a 22 Traffic Review; isn't that right, Mr. Schmitt? 23 MR. SCHMITT: For the rezoning request 24 they would be required to have a Traffic Impact 225
1 Study, not for the Master Plan request. 2 MR. SCHULTZ: You can do your review 3 without all of that. 4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And then I bring 5 it before the Commission at a whole, for them to 6 decide whether or not they want to ask them to do 7 another Traffic Study? 8 MR. SCHULTZ: You may not even have 9 to do that when you bring the Master Plan before the 10 Commission as a whole. It sounds like it's a 11 requirement for the zoning change if there is one 12 proposed. 13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. I just 14 wanted to be clear and I wanted everyone to know that 15 I received that letter. I can have Xerox copies made 16 and give it to the other Commissioners at our next 17 meeting. 18 MR. SCHMITT: Madam Chair, we'd 19 appreciate a copy of that letter as well. We did not 20 receive this. 21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Oh, you did not 22 have one? 23 MR. SCHMITT: No. I anticipated what 24 it was but- 226
1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Now I really feel 2 special. 3 MR. SCHMITT: I knew what it was, but 4 I didn't get a copy of it. 5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. I will make 6 you a copy and I will send it and you can disperse it 7 to all the other members. 8 MEMBER KOCAN: Just to be 9 argumentative, because that's who I am, I just feel 10 comfortable making a motion stating that we would not 11 require a Traffic Study to be performed by these 12 three residents, as we already have on record with 13 staff a Traffic Report from Promenade and Catholic 14 Central, which will suffice the situation. 15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is there a second 16 to that motion? 17 MEMBER PAPP: I'll second it. 18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Papp seconded 19 that motion. Is there any further discussion? 20 Yes, Mr. Shroyer. 21 MEMBER SHROYER: A question. Is the 22 motion intended to allow them to come to the Master 23 Plan and Zoning, or to waive it totally to the 24 Planning Commission? I believe it's the latter, but 227
1 I want to make sure. 2 MEMBER KOCAN: It's my intent that it 3 waives it for the committee as well as when they come 4 forward that they can bring the Traffic Study from 5 the Promenade and the Catholic Central study, that's 6 on file with the City. 7 MR. SCHULTZ: I guess, the Commission 8 does, based on what the Chair read, have to make some 9 findings as to the basis for the waiver. There's not 10 even a rezoning application before the Commission and 11 there may not be for sometime. It's possible the 12 scenario would be if you waive it tonight, the 13 obligation to bring it when they come in for 14 rezoning, that that could be 18 months, 36 months, or 15 four years from now. 16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Well, let me read 17 a portion of this letter. 18 MEMBER KOCAN: Or we can put a 19 stipulation stating within the next six months. 20 MR. SCHULTZ: Is there a reason for 21 doing it now if it's not required at this step or 22 even the next step or three steps from now? 23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Let me just read 24 part of this letter. 228
1 You may be aware that we have submitted 2 applications to change our Master Plan 3 designation from OST to B2, as well as the 4 actual rezoning application. This was at the 5 suggestion and counsel of City Planner, 6 Tim Schmitt. Obviously the properties have 7 little value now as residences due to the area
8 development. Our plans are to place the 9 properties up for sale should the Commission 10 grant our request. On Tuesday, February 12, a 11 few days after submitting the rezoning 12 applications, Ms. Freeman called me and asked 13 for a Traffic Study. I admit to 14 misunderstanding when Mr. Schmitt told me about 15 the Traffic Study requirement. I thought the 16 City did the study, especially when I was 17 charged $150 at the time I submitted the 18 rezoning application. 19 So they obviously sent this in, the 20 rezoning. So why can't we have the motion stand, 21 either pass or fail according to the vote? 22 MR. SCHULTZ: Commission's pleasure. 23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Anybody have any 24 other questions or comments? 229
1 Mr. Evancoe. 2 MR. EVANCOE: I guess the only thing I 3 would say is that the Traffic Studies that exist 4 there now are based on the zoning that is presently 5 there. B2 uses, as you can imagine, could generate 6 significantly more traffic than OST does, and so what 7 they're adding to the mix is more traffic. And if 8 you don't ask them to quantify that, it weakens your 9 ability to make any requirements you as proceed 10 forward. 11 Mr. Schultz' question to me is if they 12 don't do it, will the Commission require the staff to 13 do the Traffic Study? And I presume you would not. 14 If we did, we would probably have to bill the 15 Applicant and in that event they're paying for it 16 either way. 17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Well, I would 18 assume what these people basically want is to -- and 19 B2 might not be the appropriate zoning. But I assume 20 by this letter and by everything we've seen, that 21 these residents do not want to keep their property 22 residential. They would like to rezone it, sell it 23 and move. 24 So wouldn't the traffic study be 230
1 incumbent upon the person who bought the property? 2 MR. EVANCOE: It would be whoever is 3 the Applicant for the rezoning. 4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Schultz. 5 MR. SCHULTZ: How about a compromise. 6 How about you give them -- it sounds like there is 7 some sentiment to waive this, at least until we know 8 what we're dealing with. If they're being asked to 9 produce it now in order for their application to be 10 processed, you could give them some kind of temporary 11 or at least conditional waiver, and allow the Master 12 Plan Committee to do its work without them being held 13 up because they haven't submitted this piece. 14 But if somebody comes in with a 15 rezoning request that looks like it's substantial or 16 for an intense use, you may want to be able to have 17 the opportunity to go back and say, you know what, 18 we're going to need that study after all. 19 Conditionally, to let them go forward 20 so that the City says you can't move from here, 21 that's one thing. I don't know if the Commission is 22 really ready or has enough information to say we 23 don't ever want it. 24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Did you have a 231
1 comment, Mr. Papp? 2 MEMBER PAPP: The last meeting we 3 brought up the traffic on Wixom Road. We brought up 4 that there were 22 roads that lead to Wixom Road, and 5 I asked if Wixom Road could handle the traffic with 6 the additional Catholic Central going in, and I was 7 assured that yes, it could. You're dealing with 8 three properties. What possibly could they build on 9 those three properties to generate traffic that would 10 be far more than the 22 roads that already lead 11 there, and the 4,000 seats in the stadium? 12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And it is less than 13 four acres. 14 MR. PAPP: It's less than four acres, 15 right. I mean, we're not going to put a used car lot 16 there, you know. 17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: B2 has a lot, but 18 we don't know if that's applicable at this point. 19 But like for example, a convenience store, that's an 20 in and out thing. You know, I don't know. I think
21 there is a motion on the table. 22 MEMBER KOCAN: I'm willing to amend 23 the motion to say for an eight or nine-month period. 24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. 232
1 MEMBER PAPP: Second. 2 MEMBER RUYLE: With that, I'll vote 3 with the motion. Other than that, I would have voted 4 against it. 5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: No more comments? 6 (There were no further comments 7 from the Commission members.) 8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Can we vote on the 9 motion, please, Ms. McBeth. 10 MS. McBETH: Thank you. 11 Commissioner Papp. 12 MEMBER PAPP: Yes. 13 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Ruyle. 14 MEMBER RUYLE: Yes. 15 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Shroyer. 16 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 17 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Avdoulos. 18 MEMBER AVDOULOS: No. 19 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Kocan. 20 MEMBER KOCAN: Yes. 21 MS. McBETH: And Chairperson Nagy. 22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes. 23 MS. McBETH: Motion passes 5 to 1. 24 MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION 233
1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We do not have any 2 Matters for Discussion. 3 SPECIAL REPORTS 4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have any 5 Special Reports? 6 (There were no Special Reports 7 by the Commission members.) 8 AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION 9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: This is our last 10 Audience Participation. Is there anybody in audience 11 that would like to address the Commission? 12 MR. HOGAN: I have some pictures for 13 you, but due to the hour, I think I'll just go ahead 14 and do the verbal stuff. 15 I have been concerned recently- 16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Excuse me. You 17 didn't identify yourself. 18 MR. HOGAN: Wayne Hogan, H-o-g-a-n. 19 Recently going through the complexes 20 and parking lots during the snow removal audits and 21 looking at how much in compliance they are with the 22 local ordinances and what common sense dictates, I 23 see a lot of trouble with the policy that Novi has. 24 Recently, within the last week, someone 234
1 has talked to some of the people that you're 2 contracting, to improve, and it did improve for one 3 snow storm, but that was the extent of it. Usually 4 when it snows like what happened the other day 5 happens, we give it one day, then we give it another 6 day, and then those types of things should be cleaned 7 up. As far as parking, a ton of snow on one 8 handicapped parking space, but every other place in 9 the parking lot is clear. Those types of things. 10 In the snow issues, and frankly the 11 access issues at the senior housing places you have, 12 there are curbs everywhere. There are a handful, 13 literally a handful, of curb cuts in the whole 14 Meadowbrook Commons Complex. There are curbs 15 everywhere. This is a complex that handles senior 16 citizens, many of them with mobility issues and 17 persons with disabilities. And forward thinking is 18 not taking place when those types of things are being 19 done. 20 There's some stuff that's being built 21 now, there's some additional senior stuff on the map 22 to be done, but I still see these curbs going in all 23 over the place. There is a place over on Twelve 24 Oaks, I can't remember the name of it, it's just to 235
1 the east of Twelve Oaks, again with the curbs all the 2 way around. Everything is eight inches off the 3 ground. We're talking about people who have issues 4 with stepping up even from hips and so on. And these 5 are places that were made specifically for seniors 6 and, this is what gets me with the curb cuts. 7 The curb cuts are not just for people 8 in wheelchairs to get back and forth from one surface 9 to another, they're also for people with walkers and 10 people who can't step up, and people just in general 11 to make it easier to egress. 12 Another issue has been for the last 13 couple of meetings I have talked to -- the meeting 14 times, dates, and information, the agendas and 15 minutes being caught up, being done on time, and 16 today I just went to the City Council meeting and let 17 them know about the huge number of meetings that were 18 not taking place that were on the maps, that were on 19 the calendars, were on the kiosks, were on people's 20 list that when you call up their offices, that didn't 21 take place at all. If they didn't take place, they 22 didn't take place at the right time. They were 23 cancelled for two or three months at a time. 24 Tonight, I came here at 7 o'clock. On 236
1 the web site its says 7:30, on the calendar it says 2 7:30. I called five times up here today, and I was 3 told 7 o'clock, 7 o'clock, 7 o'clock. And that was 4 with the person looking at the kiosk right over there 5 that's five feet from their desk, and they told me it 6 says 7 o'clock on it. 7 I was here at 7 o'clock. There wasn't 8 a Planning meeting going on at 7 o'clock. 9 We have also some issues that have 10 come up right away -- I'll try to be at quick as I 11 can. There are some places that are being built now 12 and the handicap and the ADA issues are just being 13 tossed out the window. I'll give you a for instance; 14 you can drive by yourself one day and take a look. 15 We have places that are awesome like the Outback, 16 Novi Police Department, they keep their places nice 17 and clean, the accessible parking is right there and 18 easy to use. 19 The utility of, for instance, handicap 20 parking out here is 50 percent at best. And 50 21 percent at best, half of it being disturbed by snow 22 makes it even worse. But the place, Caribou, over 23 here, Caribou Coffee, Sprint, Blockbuster, across 24 from the hospital, they don't have one curb cut for 237
1 six stores. All the way around the corner, all the 2 way down the other side, not one curb cut. Of 3 course, there's no handicap parking in that entire 4 area either. And the same type of a thing exists 5 over at Pheasant Run. Six stores, some of them are 6 double-fronted stores, but six stores all the way 7 down, there is not one curb cut, no ramp. Not any 8 way for one person to get from one surface to 9 another. 10 Those are just coming up and coming up 11 and coming up. And the van access issue, responsible 12 van access, if you see the places that do it, for 13 instance over at the hospital now, where they've made 14 major improvements, it took three years but they made 15 a lot of van access on both sides and not curbs on 16 three sides like you do out here. 17 They did patch the holes up on the 18 patio that goes right in the doors of the library. 19 Everybody on two feet, every person, went over that 20 hole every day. Every person in and out of the place 21 had to go over that hole. They finally did patch 22 that, but they have three sided curbs where you have 23 to park for your handicapping. And you have a ramp 24 that's literally 20 degrees and not even a foot 238
1 long. And it's an inch and a half off the ground for 2 you to try to get up onto the patio, and you open 3 your car immediately onto an 11-inch curb. 4 Let's see. I'll try to be quick 5 here. As far as if you look at the Outback, the 6 Outback has got really nice access on both sides. It 7 doesn't kill people's business, it actually improves 8 business. If people just aren't able to go to places 9 that don't have adequate parking, and some people say 10 well, it hurts their business, well it hurts the 11 convenience for everybody in the neighborhood if they 12 can't use the facilities. 13 The Red Hot & Blue is another place on 14 the A list. They clean their snow up immediately. 15 There's access on both sides of the cars, and it's a 16 restaurant where they depend on high turnover, so it 17 just makes sense for them to make it as easy as 18 possible. 19 With regard to the Catholic Central 20 issue, I made some comments with it regarding tossing 21 parking for these games into practice parking lots 22 and parking lots, and grass and gravel and ditches, 23 and everything else that someone can pull a car into. 24 Everybody has to traverse all of those different 239
1 elements as well, getting from those vehicles to the 2 place. And they only had on their Plans or in their 3 drawings, nine handicapped places for the 3,000 4 seats. 5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: They had 13. 6 MR. HOGAN: Pardon me? 7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: They had 13. 8 MR. HOGAN: Yeah, but the others 9 aren't even close to the place. 10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I don't mean to be 11 rude to you, but you are double the amount of time we 12 usually give. Could you wrap it up? 13 MR. HOGAN: Yes. I think that needs 14 to be looked at very carefully, because I still 15 haven't had a return call from Father yet regarding 16 what their plans are for people who have mobility 17 issues that are going to use that place to come and 18 watch games. The moms and dads and grandpas and baby 19 strollers, you know, the gamut. 20 Why are we eliminated from 21 participating just because someone has the ability to 22 do so? 23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Well, we will 24 be -- we have requested that they come back for Final 240
1 Site Plan, so you'll have another chance to review 2 that before we approve it. 3 MR. HOGAN: Okay. Thank you. Just 4 one more thing. Please keep in the forward thinking 5 mode on accessibility, because the accessibility 6 issues are going to be getting better for us. 7 They're already in the works to get better so people 8 should be making it, instead of 12 to 1 on the ramp, 9 15 to 1 on the ramp. It is already in the works, so 10 why have to retrofit everything that comes down the 11 pike. I would just suggest that would be a nice 12 thing to have happen and it's not that deleterious to 13 their appearance. 14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you, 15 Mr. Hogan, we always appreciate your comments. 16 Is there a motion to adjourn? 17 MEMBER RUYLE: Are you closing the 18 audience participation? 19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Oh, I'm sorry. 20 I'm closing the audience participation. 21 ADJOURNMENT 22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is there a motion 23 to adjourn? 24 MEMBER RUYLE: Move to adjourn. 241
1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very 2 much. Is there a second? 3 MEMBER KOCAN: Second. 4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: All in favor say 5 aye. 6 ALL MEMBERS: Aye. 7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We are adjourned. 8 (The meeting was adjourned 9 at 12:35 a.m.) 10 _ _ _ 11 I, MAUREEN A. HARAN, do hereby certify 12 that I have recorded stenographically, the 13 proceedings had and the testimony taken in the 14 above-entitled matter, at the time and place 15 hereinbefore set forth; and I do further certify that 16 the foregoing transcript, consisting of 242 17 pages, is a full, true and correct transcript of my 18 stenographic notes. 19 20 Signature on File 21 Maureen A. Haran, C.S.R. 3606 22 03-19-03 23 (Date) Siganture on File Donna Jernigan, Planning Assistant Date Approved: April 16, 2003 242
|