The meeting was called to order at or about 7:30 p.m.

Present: Members Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague (arrived at 9:00 p.m.)

Also present: Barbara McBeth, Planner; Tim Schmitt, Planner; Darcy Schmitt, Planner; Lance Shipman, Landscape Architect; Brian Coburn, Engineer; Ben Croy, Engineer; Tom Shultz, Attorney; Peter Albertson, Façade Consultant; Don Tilton, Wetland Consultant

Member Sprague led the meeting in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Member Paul asked that under Matters for Discussion, "Letter from Ayres, Lewis, Norris and May" be added to the Agenda. It is in reference to a no-cost educational seminar proposed by Member Paul.

Moved by Member Ruyle, approved by Member Paul:

Linda Roberts, 30377 Balfour Drive: Thanked the Commission for their interest in the Bristol Corners residents with regard to the Beck North development. She wondered why more changes weren’t made to the revised plan, specifically, a ring road, berm installation prior to construction, complete tree survey, change in cul-de-sac layout, preservation of wetlands and woodlands, identified building envelopes, and new water drainage plans. The new plan has shorter cul-de-sacs and deeper setbacks, but they don’t address the concerns of the residents and Planning Commission. Lot 25 now has a 125-foot setback (as opposed to 100 feet) but all the trees in the additional footage are marked for removal for Dissipation Basin "C". This removes screening and directs water toward the remaining trees. The new lot 26 requires the screening trees to be removed and leaves the wetland vulnerable. Many basins, sewers and sanitary lines are planned to run through the forest, which she feels will cause irreparable damage and will negatively affect the residents. The area east of lot 26 is still not designated as a conservation easement. A cul-de-sac will provide access to that area which could provide for its development in the future, and all the trees will be lost. A packet has been received by the City proposing additional screening, but there are no details on where the trees will go. It is unclear whether sound and light issues have been addressed. It states that no berm will be provided. She is concerned that the Planning Department has approved this plan. She stated that the road plan, which is on the table for review this evening, determines how the lots will be laid out and subsequently developed. She wants the trees to be preserved as well as the value of their homes. She requested the developer to put a berm on his property between lots 17 and 26, with water drainage on the west side. She cited Hickory Ridge as an industrial park in Novi where a berm was placed in a similar manner. She requested that the backs of buildings be faced toward the residential homes. She asked that no more trees be removed. She asked that no trees be removed from the area along the east side of the property (where the water and dissipation basins are located) and that lot 26 and the adjacent lot be dedicated as a conservation easement. She closed in stating that the lot on which her home sits was brought before the City when the building design called for the removal of three large trees. The developer was turned down and consequently a home was built that respected the woodlands. She wondered why Beck North’s developer is not required to abide by those same standards. She stated that enough trees were removed from the property in the name of farming. She requested that the site plan for Beck North return to the Planning Commission for Final Site Plan approval.

Jason Roberts, 30377 Balfour Drive: Represented four neighbors:

1. Jennifer Brown, 45768 Bristol Circle, wrote that she does not think the developer addressed the concerns of the residents or Planning Commission with the revised plan. She was specifically concerned with lots 26/27 at the end of the cul-de-sac because it appears that they may impact the wetlands; The berms should be placed on the developer’s property and should be built in addition to the trees; and the developer has not submitted a plan that optimizes the preservation of the woodlands and other natural features of the property. She asked that the Planning Commission reject the proposal.

2. Derrick Darkowski, 30369 Balfour Drive: Stated that the close proximity of this project will affect his home in terms of views, noise, traffic and property values. He believes the developer will continue to maintain contact with the residents most affected by this project. He does not support a building or lighted parking lot between lots 25 and 26. He asked that a berm along the north-south line of trees that connects the Beck North and Bristol Corners parks. He asked that any changes made to this plan be brought to the attention of the Bristol Corners residents.

3. Kenneth Hopkins, 30370 Balfour Drive: Concerned that the industrial park will cause additional water runoff in the wetlands behind Balfour Drive, where it appears that trees are already dying from excess water. He stated that that his property value will be reduced by this industrial park.

4. Tom and Sylvia Sutherland, 45776 Bristol Circle: Objected to the Developer’s intention to cut down trees to put in berms. They asked that all trees abutting the residential properties be preserved, and that berms be placed on the developer’s side of the woodlands (not in place of them).

Chris Decoy, 45748 Bristol Circle: Concerned about the noise, lighting and traffic of the proposed Beck North property if a berm is not built on the Developer’s property. She stated that her home’s value will be reduced by this project abutting Bristol Corners.

Sandra Dutton, 45732 Bristol Circle: Concerned that the woodlands are being removed. She cited Larry DeBrincat’s letter to David Evancoe dated July 15, 2003, wherein it is stated that the property has approximately 28 acres of woodlands. Four acres are slated for removal, an estimation of 20,573 trees under eight inches and 5,733 trees over eight inches to be removed. She was pleased that the cul-de-sacs have been shortened, and that some evaporation basins are planned, but she is still concerned about trees decaying because of excess water. She was also concerned that no berm was noted on the plan. She quoted from the wetlands/woodlands stewardship brochure she just received from the City of Novi, and concluded that she hopes the City will practice what it preaches.

Doug Dutton, 45732 Bristol Circle: Asked that the Planning Commission deny the Beck North plan as submitted. He approved of the shortened cul-de-sacs but requested that berms be placed for protection that will not affect the woodlands.

Lori Petrowski, 45176 Bristol Circle: Opposed to the Beck North plan. She does not approve of the removal of woodlands for Dissipation Basin "B". She does not want the water to run toward the trees and kill them off. She cited the dead trees in Novi’s Briarwood subdivision, a result of water runoff. She stated that standing water has potential for disease and virus; she suggested that the runoff be redirected from the east side of lot 17 to the west side of lot 17. She is concerned about visibility (screening) and she quoted from the stewardship brochure as well. She cited the passage regarding woodlands and wetlands constituting important physical, aesthetic, recreational and economic assets to the existing and future residents of the City of Novi. She is concerned that the Developer has already removed trees from his lot, and stated that a violation of the Woodlands Ordinance is cause for a civil penalty. She stated that there will be an increase in visibility, traffic and garbage. She asked how the residents can prevent people from wandering through their yards. She is concerned about her property value.

Scott Halloran, 30361 Balfour Drive: Disappointed in the revised Beck North site plan. He asked that the Planning Commission place stipulations on this plan or reject it altogether. He stated that this revision removes more trees and impacts the residents even more than the first plan. He asked that no buildings be allowed in the wooded areas, all trees remain untouched, a 15-foot berm be built prior to construction, no utilities or disturbances be planned in the woodlands, and no building and street water discharge be directed at the wetlands. He asked that a study be conducted on the north end of the property to review the runoff issues. He asked that light, sound, security and environmental impact studies be performed by a neutral third party. He asked that the woodlands not be clear cut, and stated that it is possible for the residents and the industrial park to co-exist without compromising.

Kelly Halloran, 30361 Balfour Drive: Disappointed that the site plan has returned to the Planning Commission in this shape. She stated that she is concerned that the Planning Department has approved this plan, given its vast incompleteness of details and the lack of protection and attention to the residents. She stated that the two changes made do not adequately address the issues brought forth earlier. The impact on the subdivision, woodlands and wetlands, and noise, opacity and security issues have not been addressed. She is still concerned that so many trees are slated for removal. She used the overhead to locate the proposed Nadlan Court, which will affect her home the most. She stated that at construction time, the trees will be removed from the lots on the court (26-29) because they are located in the woodlands. Her pictures showed the current view from her home and the possible view once the trees are removed. She stated that she is concerned about whether a berm will be required in this area because it is not adjacent to the residential. She stated that the potential for great exposure is very likely, and she asked what protection the residents have. She stated that the developer is adversely affecting the property’s natural resources. She reiterated that a berm is needed along the eastern and northern property lines. The City has said that no berm is required as no buildings are proposed, but Ms. Halloran quoted this line from the Ordinance, "…at all times to protect the neighboring residential districts from any adverse impacts." She stated that a berm is a requirement for industrial districts adjacent to residential. She stated that her residence will not have any protection from the noise, dirt, development process or exposure once the project begins. She showed pictures of what the properties look like when the leaves fall off of the trees. A berm was placed prior to construction of Phase I; she asked for one to be placed alongside the woodlands for Phase II. She stated from the Ordinance, " …the Planning Commission may modify the requirements for a berm when adjacent to woodlands and approve the berm to be built around the existing woodlands." She concluded that she does not recommend approval for this plan, but would approve of a plan that reflects the City’s Ordinances, (light industrial guidelines and woodlands protection). This plan would include a berm placed along the north and east property lines positioned outside of the existing woodlands to protect and buffer, changes in Nadlan Court and Cartier Drive to protect the woodlands, significant reduction or elimination of those lots adjacent to the woodlands area, the woodlands south of lot 25 and east of lot 26 labeled on the site plan as a conservation easement for guaranteed protection, water drainage, sanitary and sewer systems and basins remain outside of the regulated wetlands and woodlands, lots adjacent to residential be designed so that only buildings are along property lines and not parking lots with lights and noise. She assumed that a parking lot adjacent to her home would be built on the proposed Nadlan Court. She also asked that the plan come back to the Planning Commission for Final Site Plan approval.

Wayne Hogan, Novi: Asked that the damage to the handicapped area at the Eaton Center west of Novi Road on the north side of Ten Mile be looked at. He stated that the damage was done by the garbage trucks, and while the new Ordinance language reflects a change to prohibit handicapped parking by the dumpster areas and will protect new business owners, he wanted to make sure that existing owners (commercial and apartment) are aware of this problem. Mr. Hogan also stated that the signs for handicapped parking at the new pub located at Market and Main streets have been ripped out, and now the distance to businesses from the existing handicapped parking is as far away as 1,100 feet. He asked that future handicapped parking be designed with less curbs, as it prevents drainage and the parking places become icy or muddy. He also asked if a project is built in phases, that suitable handicapped parking spaces be placed concurrently with each building instead of with the final phase of the project. He also asked that if a parking area is designed for shared parking, the handicapped parking places be reflective of the number necessary for all buildings.

Andrew Mutch, 24541 Hampton Court: Spoke about Beck North. He stated that their proposed plan is not ready for approval. He stated that building envelopes should be shown, the proposals for berming should be provided and more information should be forthcoming regarding the impacts to the woodlands. He stated that the adjacent residents who spoke previously were not crying NIMBY (not in my backyard), but were asking that the City’s Ordinances be met. He read, "…the preservation of woods, trees, similarly wooded vegetation and related natural resources shall have priority over a development when there are no location alternatives." from the Woodlands Ordinance. He read point eleven from the Woodlands review, "…the burden of demonstrating that no feasible and prudent alternative location for structures or improvements without undue hardship shall be upon the Applicant." He stated that it is not the job of the residents or Planning Commission to prove there are other alternatives. He cited from the Site Plan Review, "…the Planning Commission can impose reasonable conditions to protect the natural environment and conserve natural resources and energy to ensure compatibility with adjacent uses of land and to promote the use of the land in a socially and economically desirable manner. These conditions must …be designed to protect natural resources, the health, safety and welfare as well as the social and economic wellbeing of those who use the land use or activity under consideration, residents, and landowners immediately adjacent to the land use or proposed activity and the community as a whole." He stated that the Planning Commission’s first job when reviewing a site plan is to determine how the project will impact the surrounding property owners. He stated that the intent of the industrial Ordinance is at all times to protect the neighboring residential districts from any adverse impacts. The berming, setback, lighting and noise issues are all noted in the Ordinance so as to prevent adverse impacts, not to deny development. He stated that there are alternatives in order to protect the woodlands. Mr. Mutch used the overhead to show a design that he made for the Applicant that proposed a loop road against the western property line that provided for 25 lots, some of which encroached the woodlands, but he felt it was to a lesser extent than the Applicant’s plan. He stated that with the likely combination of some lots the impact would again change. He stated that the developer is unreasonable to expect thirty lots to be placed on a property with ten acres of regulated wetlands and 28 acres of regulated woodlands without destroying the natural features on the site and impacting the adjacent residents. He stated that there must have been a miscommunication at the last Planning Commission meeting based on what the developer is presenting at this meeting. He asked the Planning Commission to give the Applicant clear direction on what they consider to be a reasonable number of lots and a reasonable amount of woodlands for preservation. He stated that he can sit down and draw building envelopes to scale and thinks that the Applicant has people on his staff that can do the same. He stated that there is no reason that the Planning Commission shouldn’t have this information when they are making a decision. He stated that a small developer will have a tremendous problem building on some of the proposed lots and will suffer financially just from meeting the Woodlands Ordinance obligation. He said this was unfair and unreasonable, and that it was unfair and unreasonable for the residents to the north and east to absorb the impacts of this project.

Joe Gluck, 30385 Balfour Drive: Recommended that the proposed plan for Beck North not be approved. He thought that at the last meeting good suggestions were provided for berms, leaving the trees alone and showing the building envelopes on the plan, none of which were done. He asked the developer to review his proposal and come back with something that is a win-win situation for both himself and the residents of Bristol Corners.

Chair Nagy closed the first Audience Participation segment of the night.

There was no correspondence to share.

There were no communications or Committee Reports to share.

Ms. McBeth stated that Members Avdoulos, Markham and Papp have committed to attending the Citizen Planner Program, and that any other Commissioner who is interested should contact the Staff by the following day.

Ms. McBeth reminded the Planning Commission that they are holding a joint meeting with City Council on

August 6, 2003. She stated that the Agenda was approved on July 21, 2003 by City Council. She asked that the Planning Commission let the Staff know if there was any specific background information they would like prepared for the meeting.

Member Kocan asked if the Environmental Committee meeting is scheduled for Friday, August 1, 2003 and Member Markham stated later that the meeting would be held at a later date. Member Kocan also noted that the Implementation Committee has a meeting scheduled for Monday, August 4, 2003 from 6:30 – 8:00 p.m. She confirmed that the joint meeting is scheduled on the 6^th from 7:00 to 10:00 p.m. Member Markham stated that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee also has a meeting scheduled for Wednesday, August 27, 2003 at 6:30 p.m.

There was no Consent Agenda.

Consideration of the request of Ted Minasian of Minasian Development Corporation, for approval of a one- year Final Site Plan extension. The subject project is located in Section 14 on the west side of Meadowbrook Road, between Eleven and Twelve Mile roads. The Applicant proposes a professional office building on 7.98 acres. The property is zoned OST. This is the Applicant’s second Final Site Plan extension.

Ms. McBeth stated briefly that the original Preliminary Site Plan approval was granted in October of 1999. A one-year Preliminary Site Plan extension was approved by the Planning Commission in September of 2000. The Final Site Plan was approved on August 28, 2001, and the Applicant did receive a one-year extension in July of 2002. He is now back for a second Final Site Plan extension.

Motioned by Member Markham, seconded by Member Ruyle:

Member Kocan stated that the Ordinance provides for three extensions. The first was the Preliminary Site Plan extension and the second was the first Final Site Plan extension. She asked Mr. Schultz if this would be considered the third and final extension allowed under the Ordinance. He responded that it is the Planning Commission’s interpretation of the Ordinance, whether the Preliminary Site Plan and Final Site Plan each provide for three extensions or whether three extensions total are available for an Applicant. Member Kocan asked if the motion could be changed to read, "…approve a one-year final extension of the Final Site Plan…." Member Markham agreed as did Member Ruyle.

Member Paul stated that since the original approval was given to this site plan, a Stormwater Management Plan Ordinance has been passed, and there is a pending change to the Landscape Ordinance. She stated that these changes would significantly affect this plan. She was uncomfortable with approving this extension prior to these changes being considered. Engineer Brian Coburn stated that this Applicant would be exempt from the Stormwater Management Plan Ordinance. Mr. Schultz explained that City Council passed a resolution stating that in the event any site plan achieved approval prior to the passage of the Stormwater Management Plan Ordinance, the Applicant would not be obligated to meet the terms of said Ordinance. He furthered that, because this is the final extension of the site plan, the Applicant would have to meet the Ordinance if they do not commence building during this Final Site Plan approval year. He continued that if the extension was denied there was potential for the Applicant to challenge that decision. Member Paul stated that she could not support the motion.

Member Papp stated that the Planning Department provided a letter that said no Ordinances have changed that would affect this site plan, although he felt that there were changes. Chair Nagy explained that the changes made to the Ordinance do not affect this site plan because of the City Council resolution. (tape ends).

Member Shroyer asked whether there would be a grandfather clause for site plans for the pending change to the Landscape Ordinance. Chair Nagy explained that if the site plan is brought in before the effective date of the Ordinance then the plan does not have to meet the terms of the new Ordinance. Mr. Schultz said that City Council should address that when they adopt the Ordinance. It costs a lot of money to produce professional plans, and he would think that City Council would make a decision regarding this issue when they are considering adopting the new Ordinance. Member Shroyer suggested that City Council give a specific timeframe for exempting plans from the new Ordinance language. Chair Nagy stated that they most likely would.

Motion carried 6-2. (Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Ruyle, Shroyer. No: Papp, Paul)

Consideration of the request of Cypress Partners, LLC for approval of a Section Nine Façade Waiver. The subject property is located in Section 23 on Market Street south of Grand River Avenue (TC-1 ) Town Center District. The developer is proposing a 7,500 square foot restaurant/pub going into an existing building.

Planner Barbara McBeth located the subject property on an aerial photo. It is located within the Main Street Development on the east side of Market Street, south of Grand River Avenue. The northwest corner of the building that formerly housed Vic’s Market is proposed to be reoccupied with the Gus O’Connor’s Pub and Restaurant. The surrounding properties are developed with various commercial uses within the Main Street development. To the south is the Main Street Village. To the north, across Grand River, are various commercial uses. This site and the surrounding properties are master planned for Town Center commercial uses and are zoned TC-1 (Town Center).

Ms. McBeth stated that the submitted plans show that the Applicant proposes to remodel the former Fatoosh Restaurant and Globe Furniture tenant spaces within the former Vic’s Market Building. The proposed Gus O’Connor’s Restaurant and Pub will occupy two stories within the existing building. The exterior façade of the building is proposed to be modified to resemble the appearance of an authentic Irish Pub, with the addition of wood trim in combination with the existing brick building.

The Planning Review indicated that approval is recommended, subject to minor issues to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. Following review and recommendation by the Planning Commission, the plan must proceed to the City Council for approval since the site exceeds five acres and is located in the TC Zoning District.

The Facade Review commented on the proposed façade changes which introduce a painted wood material to the existing building. The review indicated that although the proposed façade changes do not meet Ordinance requirements, approval is recommended. The review indicated that one of two possible avenues for approval would be possible. First, the preferred alternative is that the Planning Commission could recommend to City Council approval with a finding that the painted wood is an acceptable alternative material to brick and stone, as these are the required building materials in the TC District. The other alternative is that a Section Nine Waiver for the north building façade could be recommended if the Planning Commission finds that the proposed wood can be considered trim material. The proposed wood constitutes approximately 20 percent of the north building façade, and the Ordinance maximum for trim material is 15 percent. Ms. McBeth stated that Façade Consultant Peter Albertson was present if the Commission had any questions regarding this matter.

Mr. Steve Gabrys of Cypress Partners introduced Ed Smith, owner of Gus O’Connor’s. He showed pictures of actual Irish pubs so that the Planning Commission could see what the Applicant is trying to achieve with the proposed façade. Mr. Gabrys showed a picture of the existing façade and explained where certain areas would be trimmed with the material shown on the façade board. They would be using either teak wood or mahogany, which would be stained with an exterior stain protector. The wood outline would be black with inlaid maroon wood. The sign would be routed and gold-leafed. Mr. Smith stated that he is bringing to Novi an authentic first-class Irish pub and they are excited about their project.

Member Avdoulos noted that the recent Music and Motor Fest brought many people into the Main Street area and provided him with a glimpse of what is possible for the area. He stated that Gus O’Connor’s is an appropriate use for the space, and its anchoring of that corner will add to the ethnic feel of the area – Korean, Mexican, tex-mex, Mongolian and mesquite. He agreed with Mr. Albertson’s façade review. To create something with a traditional feel is appropriate. Member Avdoulos asked whether the materials were authentic. Mr. Smith responded that the façade would be constructed in Ireland and then brought to Novi for assembly by a full Irish crew. Member Avdoulos stated that he went to visit 22 Merrill Street in Birmingham to see a black-paint-on-wood façade and he believes this look will blend in well in this area. He supported the project.

Member Paul asked Mr. Albertson if he was comfortable with the black façade with gold-leaf. He responded that it is an extremely appropriate façade in the context of its use and a good addition to the Town Center District. Member Paul asked about the lighting, and Chair Nagy responded that the lighting remains the same.

Member Paul asked about outside dining. Ms. McBeth responded that all outside dining would be on private property.

Moved by Member Paul, seconded by Member Papp:

Member Shroyer thought the project will be a plus to the Community. He suggested to the Applicant that he be opened by March 17^th. He then asked if the motion should reflect the appropriate option since the Applicant provided two choices for the Planning Commission to consider. Mr. Smith responded that they prefer more wood on the front, but they provided two options just in case the Planning Commission did not approve of the use of so much wood. Member Shroyer agreed that the first option is preferable and asked whether the maker of the motion would consider adding language to the motion that cited Option One.

Chair Nagy clarified that Option One was the more authentic looking of the two options.

Member Paul asked Mr. Albertson if he would be more comfortable with the motion stating Option One. Mr. Albertson responded that it is in the best interests of the project to approve Option One and his review letter was written based on Option One.

Member Paul agreed to cite Option One in the motion and Member Papp agreed.

Member Papp thought the project looked great and will be an asset to the downtown area. He did not see any problem with the parking in the area, stating that visitors will always find a place to park in a successful Main Street location. He welcomed the Applicant to Novi.

Member Ruyle stated that the depiction of the building provided to the Planning Commission showed two signs and he wanted the Applicant to understand that they were not approving two signs for the business. Ms. McBeth responded that the Applicant was aware that they would have to go through the proper procedures to get two signs. Member Ruyle welcomed the Applicant to Novi.

Member Markham asked to comment on a procedural item. She stated that because this property is 8.3 acres, the Planning Commission is only recommending an approval to City Council and they, in fact, must review and approve this site plan. Because this is a minor item which is typically reviewed by the Planning Commission, she suggested that it seems a bit unnecessary for every Applicant who intends on opening a business in the old Vic’s Market location to have to go through this elongated process. She is glad that the Applicant has come to Novi with his business, but doesn’t see the need to tie up two Agendas for every future retrofit of this space. Ms. McBeth explained that this was the appropriate manner in which to proceed with this Applicant’s request. Mr. Schultz concurred, stating that the Planning Commission could append to the recommending motion the statement that if City Council agrees with the Planning Commission’s comment, then henceforth the Planning Commission can give this approval. Mr. Schultz also offered to go back and see if there is an alternative interpretation that can be made of this Section of the Ordinance. He stated that Member Markham’s comments are well taken.

Chair Nagy agreed, stating that this is a large building and there will be a number of businesses coming in and it doesn’t make sense to send all of the future requests to City Council. Mr. Schultz responded that this is the Town Center District, and a lot of the TC District authority and decision making has been relegated to City Council. The manner in which this request is being handled is indeed the conservative interpretation of the Ordinance.

Member Markham noted that the handicapped spaces are not located near the businesses on Main Street and she asked if someone could take a look at that in an attempt to improve the situation. Because there are going to be multiple businesses on this site, greater care should be given to providing access, especially in a state like Michigan that has full-scale winters. Ms. McBeth responded that this could be looked at to determine whether the plan is still in compliance.

Member Kocan supported the motion and looks forward to this business opening in the Main Street area. She is concerned that the parking issue went to the ZBA without a recommendation from the Planning Commission. She understands that the Applicant and the City have the authority to go directly to the ZBA and request a variance, but she is very concerned about the lack of parking in the area. She asked that the record reflect her concern, and the fact that as future businesses come in there will be a disparity in the required number of parking spaces. She recommended that in the future either the ZBA ask for a recommendation from the Planning Commission or perhaps a Planning Department staff member should attend the ZBA meeting, or at least provide that body with a Master Plan and Zoning Committee recommendation for this area.

Chair Nagy concluded the comments by acknowledging the uniqueness of this project. She stated that usually site plans are proposed with brick, brick, brick, and it’s nice to see something interesting like this. She credited the Applicant for importing everything from Ireland, stating that this will be quite an undertaking and will be very attractive.

Chair Nagy called for a brief recess.

Consideration of the request of Northern Equities for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan, Site Condominium Approval, Wetland, and Woodland Permits. The subject property is located in Section 4, east of Beck Road and north of West Road in the (I-1) Light Industrial District. The Applicant is proposing a site condominium light industrial park with thirty units including associated roads and utilities. The subject property is 63.22 acres.

Planner Tim Schmitt reminded the Planning Commission that they previously reviewed the Beck North property on June 11, 2003. At that time, the project was tabled to provide the Applicant a chance to make some changes. Mr. Schmitt located the property on an aerial photo. The property is zoned and master planned I-1. To the west is Wixom (zoned and master planned with a similar industrial designation); to the south is Beck North Phase I (zoned and master planned I-1); to the east is Bristol Corners (zoned R-2 and master planned Single Family Residential with an area designated as a Quasi Public Neighborhood Park); to the north is the Springs Apartment Complex (zoned RM-1 and master planned Multiple Family Residential).

The new plan proposed to extend Hudson Drive to the north, where it would meet Cartier Drive coming out of Wixom. Cartier Drive would be extended into a cul-de-sac. Another cul-de-sac would be provided on Nadlan Court. Pursuant to the comments made by the Planning Commission, other changes have also been made to this plan. Most notably, the cul-de-sacs have both been pulled back from the property line by 150 feet. Also, two lots along Bristol Corners have been combined to allow for future flexibility. The Applicant has proposed the maximum amount of setback of 125 feet, regardless of the building height. In that additional 25 feet of setback, the Applicant has proposed planting evergreen groupings to further screen the industrial park from the adjacent subdivision. In addition, they are proposing to plant evergreens at the ends of the cul-de-sacs to alleviate concerns about vehicle lights shining through the trees.

Mr. Schmitt stated that the proposed plan meets all Ordinance requirements. All disciplines recommend approval. The Planning Review dealt mainly with the loop road, which was previously suggested. One of the drawbacks of this design is that two lots have triple frontyard setbacks. Additionally, the loop road will require the buildings on certain lots on the east side to be oriented east-west as opposed to being more square. The east-west orientation will limit the types of development that could occur on those lots, possibly moving more activity to the rear of the property. With the more square, larger properties, there is greater flexibility in working with the site and providing better screening. The Planning Review also noted some minor issues that would need to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan approval.

Mr. Schmitt reminded the Planning Commission that the lots that abut residential will require Special Land Use approval for any use other than office. This will occur at the time of building proposal. At this time there are no buildings proposed – only roads and utilities. Mr. Schmitt commented that the appropriate lot numbering is correct in the Planning Review.

The Wetlands Review indicated that, of the ten acres of wetlands on the site - including the seven-acre wetland that goes into Phase I and Bristol Corners, a total of one-half of an acre of wetlands will be removed from two locations. Neither location is attached to other wetlands.

The Woodlands Review indicated approval of the plan. Of the approximately 28 acres of woodlands, 2.63 acres are being removed. As the Applicant previously indicated, they plan on paying an overestimated amount into the tree fund, and minimizing the impacts in the field to minimize the impact to the tree fund. Also, under Section number 37-28.a.4.b, the Applicant has provided samples of the appropriate vegetation in two areas. Mr. Schmitt stated that Mr. Larry DeBrincat of Vilican-Leman was in attendance at the meeting and could answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Mr. Schmitt noted that the sampling method is allowed in locations where no construction is being proposed.

The Landscape Review indicated approval subject to the Planning Commission’s determination on the berm. One provision of the Ordinance does allow for the waiver of the berm if significant woodlands would be preserved. On this site plan, there are about fifty feet of woodlands that could be saved by the omission of the berm.

The Traffic Review indicated approval of the site plan. The unit lines have been lined up in all but one location at the end of the cul-de-sac. This plan will limit the number of left hand turns on the property.

The Engineering Review indicated approval subject to some minor details being addressed at the time of Final Site Plan review.

The Fire Department Review indicated that there are no issues with the property at this time.

Mr. Neil Sosin, 39000 Country Club Drive, Farmington Hills, MI, introduced himself as a partner in the Northern Equities Group. Mr. Sosin apologized for Mr. Stewart’s absence from the meeting. He stated that all the comments made at the last Planning Commission meeting were discussed and considered by Northern Equities and the City. The resulting changes were listed in the letter provided to the Planning Commission.

Mr. Sosin stated that their review of the loop road issue determined that no additional trees would be saved and more lots would back up to the residences (six versus three) through its use. Mr. Sosin asserted that both Northern Equities and the Planning Department found that no major benefit would occur from the use of a loop road; it just didn’t make sense.

Mr. Sosin reiterated that with the new plan, cul-de-sacs have been moved and more screening has been provided in the 25-foot additional buffer along the north-south route on the eastern border of the property next to Bristol Corners. This would be a double row of eight-foot evergreens, for which Northern Equities asked the Planning Commission for a one-on-one exchange.

Mr. Sosin explained that without any buildings being built at this time, there would be no way to bring irrigation to those trees. He proposed that the trees would be planted in conjunction with each building built, and that Northern Equities would provide a guaranty for this activity.

Mr. Sosin also stated that the cul-de-sacs have been moved significantly to the west. Nadlan Court is about one and one-half football fields away from Bristol Corners, and Cartier Drive is about two and two-thirds football fields away from the residences. Additionally, screening pine trees have been proposed at the ends of the cul-de-sacs to minimize headlights shining onto the Bristol Corners property. He again requested that the installation of these trees coincide with the buildings being built, and the exchange rate be one-on-one. Mr. Sosin also stated that a berm has been designed to prevent vehicle traffic in the clearing previously identified by the Bristol Corners residents as an area of concern.

Mr. Sosin stated that, at the request of the Planning Commission, the storm drainage on the north side of the property has been moved to Cartier Drive so as to avoid the removal of trees. He noted the northeast basins have been reduced in size to reduce their impact on the trees. He stated that with the removal and replanting of trees anticipated with this new site plan, approximately 2.63 acres of woodlands are being disturbed.

Mr. Sosin concluded by stating that this plan has met the objective standard and the Applicant has received his MDEQ Permit. He said that this second phase of the industrial park best serves all interested parties by preserving the buffering woodlands instead of providing a berm to separate itself from the abutting residential. He stated that the trees are a more effective buffer. The berm would have to be ten feet high with a six foot crown and a 3:1 slope ratio – a horizontal measurement of almost sixty feet. He asked the Planning Commission to approve his plan and thanked them for their time.

Member Kocan acknowledged that the Applicant made some changes to the plan that addressed previous comments (shorter cul-de-sacs, lot alignment, relocated storm pipe, additional setback). She noted that the loop road design provided by the Applicant (submitted as a visual to show why the concept of a loop road was dismissed) has deterrents, specifically some lots would have three frontyards. Also, a resident commented that they would prefer that the back sides of the buildings abut their homes, but this plan would provide for the sides of buildings to be abutting. Member Kocan wasn’t sure which option was the better solution. She stated that although changes have been made to the plan, the most significant comment not addressed is the preservation of the woodlands, which she thought was the biggest issue regarding this property.

Member Kocan noted that the first phase of this industrial park encompassed approximately sixty acres. There were no substantive environmental features and nearly the entire parcel has been developed. In this, the second phase, where considerable environmental issues do exist, Northern Equities is looking to provide the same amount of development. Member Kocan stated that the City does not want another Bellagio situation where, as each parcel comes forward, the woodlands are slowly replaced by development. She stated that if the Planning Commission approves this plan showing the proposed lot lines, they are actually giving an "okay" to the developer to ultimately grade those entire lots. She requested that a preservation area be determined now by Northern Equities, and not by each individual developer done on a piece-meal basis in the future.

Member Kocan also requested a tree inventory. She stated that the Planning Commission does not know which trees are slated for preservation and which are slated for removal. She also would not subscribe to the Applicant’s contributing excessively to the tree fund, because the Applicant may proceed with his development, thinking that he doesn’t have to care about the preservation of trees since the money has been put in the fund to cover their demise. The tree replacement issue needs to be addressed by the development as a whole, not burdened upon each developer as he comes in at a later time.

Member Kocan noted that the Applicant had reduced the number of lots proposed but not the resulting impact into the wetlands and woodlands. Some lots were combined, but nothing was moved away from sensitive areas. She cited lot 26 as one parcel that should not be developed. She stated that lots 27 and 28 could go a little deeper. The bulb of the cul-de-sac should not enter the woodlands. She wanted to see a preservation plan for lots 12 through 15, lot 17 and lots 26 through29. She requested that the basins be removed from the wetland and woodland areas.

She referred to the plan presented by Mr. Mutch and stated that it was a better example of how to preserve natural features. The Planning Commission, she said, must act as the beholder of the woodlands. Member Kocan recounted how a Bristol Corners homeowner’s request to remove three trees was denied by the Woodlands Board of Review, and she thought the same reasoning applied to this property, namely, that the owner was aware of the trees’ existence when they purchased the property. She does not see how the City can issue a Woodlands Permit without knowing all of the particulars. The plan is incomplete; any trees removed during the building process will affect the drainage on the site. Without granting a Woodlands Permit, Member Kocan cannot approve a Preliminary Site Plan.

Member Kocan addressed the neighboring residents, and while she understood their desire for the berm she told them that in all practicality they couldn’t have the berm and save the woods. She acknowledged that the berm may reduce noise, but she felt that trees were an amenity that is better appreciated by the residents and the City. She suggested that the additional screening might be achieved by a wall of offset evergreens (80 percent opacity in the winter, 90% opacity in the summer) and would also help absorb some of the noise.

Member Kocan stated that Special Land Use requirements would have to be met on those lots abutting the residential homes, which will help mitigate some of the impacts associated with those lots’ development. The Light Industrial Ordinance regulates noise levels, and if the developer does not provide the berm then the decibel levels on the buildings will have to be much lower, because noise will more easily travel to the property line in the berm’s absence. Member Kocan also commented that the City has a decent Noise Ordinance, and a certified sound expert is required to report on this issue. The City’s setback and lighting requirements are reasonable, and the Planning Commission is allowed, when reviewing Special Land Use requests, to require additional provisions like more buffering if necessary. A Special Land Use would not be allowed to have doors or openings face residential and truckwells cannot face the property. Conditions like these are meant to protect adjacent residents.

Member Avdoulos stated that according to the Ordinance, "The intent of the light industrial district is meant to encourage innovations and variety in type, design and arrangement of land uses, but all times to protect neighboring residential district from any adverse impacts." He suggested that certain issues pertaining to this property have been ignored with the proposed site plan. There is only a small portion of the woodlands that will be disturbed by the proposed road construction; however, there will be a tremendous onus placed on the future developers of this industrial park when specific lots are developed.

Member Avdoulos commented that he would have liked to see the old plan and the new plan overlaid so that the differences in the two plans became more obvious. He thought that the loop road sketch presented earlier in the evening had certain merits and indicated that, with a little creativity, something that is beneficial and economical for the developer, and protects the residents, can be designed.

Member Avdoulos thought the Applicant was presenting a plan that served his purpose but did not take into consideration what issues the future developers of the park would have to address. While the reviews indicate that the proposal meets the various intents of the Ordinance, the Planning Commission must consider the future, and how some of the decisions made by this proposal will affect future development.

Member Avdoulos acknowledged that modifications were made to address some of the comments made previously, but the new plan’s suggestion that thirty lots can be designed for this park does not address the woodlands impact or attempt to make use of the existing wetlands in order to benefit the project. Member Avdoulos closed in stating that he appreciated the residents’ attempt to protect their greatest investment, but he reminded them that in the future they should limit their comments to three minutes. He charged the Applicant with the responsibility of providing not only an acceptable road layout, but also a feasible foundation on which future developers can build.

Member Shroyer stated that he did not see how the berm could be utilized on the property, but he did think the proposed evergreen wall would satisfactorily address the opacity issue. He was very concerned about lots 12 through 15, namely that they were too densely wooded to develop. He had concerns for lots 26 through 29, and even lot 17. He didn’t understand why Cartier Drive could not be moved further south to save the woodlands. He still thought the developer should consider a loop road that would be less invasive. Member Shroyer did not support the plan because of its adverse affect on the neighboring residents.

Member Paul asked Dr. Donald Tilton, Wetlands Consultant, how the wetlands may be affected in the future with the removal of so much of the woodlands. He responded that there are two ways to protect the wetland hydrology. The wetland that shares a property line with Bristol Corners will be protected because the little bit of its watershed in the surrounding area is going to be protected. Additionally, the water from Bristol Corners still feeds that little system, so it will continue to have a source of water there. One of the issues that was discussed and then rejected was the idea of adding more water to the wetland. He was concerned that it would drown the property. That is why the storm system was designed to bypass that wetland and feed the wetland to the south instead.

Secondly, Dr. Tilton stated that the stormwater connected by the street system will be run through swirl concentrators and sediment forebays and then discharged from those water quality protection systems into the wetlands so that they’re getting more water than they would be getting in an undeveloped condition. Those wetlands are dominated by emergent vegetation (cattails, reed canary grass, smooth brome, etc.) which can all tolerate additional water and in some cases, it enhances the ecological quality of the area.

Member Paul asked if Dr. Tilton was comfortable with wetland "B" on lot 24 being filled. He replied affirmatively, explaining that the alternative would be to leave it in place and make it an "ecological trap." It will have a road along one side, and it is very small in size. The amphibian use would be literally limited to that little system. There is no benefit to the population. The proposal to pick that wetland up and move it down adjacent to an existing wetland system so that the wildlife habitat – the ecological values – can be sustained at a location within this development, provides more of a public benefit.

Dr. Tilton said the same is true of the wetland that borders lots 12 and 13 as well. He did not think this small wetland could be sustainable with development on all four of its sides. He was not sure where the water would come from to feed it; basically, then, the recommendation was made to move both of these isolated wetlands further south.

Member Paul asked about wetland "C". Dr. Tilton said the plan is to feed that wetland with filtered stormwater (via a sediment forebay or an end-of-the-pipe treatment system).

Member Paul supported a loop road configuration and stated that thirty lots are too much to fit on this property. She would be in favor of the Planning Commission issuing a waiver for the frontyard setbacks on the lots that would have multiple front yards.

Member Paul stated that the most important issue on this site plan is that all proposed lots must be buildable. She listed 12 through 15 and lots 26 through 29 as lots that are not feasible. Approving this plan would not be economical for this Applicant, requiring him to put in all the impervious surfaces to accommodate lots that can’t be developed. It would not be economical for the developer to replace the lost woodlands on those lots, and it would be a hardship on the City to lose those woodlands. Member Paul would support a good plan but she thought this plan needed more work. She preferred tabling this plan to allow the Applicant a chance to redesign the site with 25 lots. She told the Applicant that she thought it was a good idea for them to meet with the residents because they have some legitimate concerns and they are well-spoken people who are not opposed to Beck North coming forward with an industrial park plan.

Member Papp thanked the residents for coming forward with their concerns. He commented that resolving woodlands issues takes a lot of work and he didn’t think this proposal addressed those issues. Member Papp has sat on the Woodlands Review Board and has denied residents from removing one or two trees; he cannot support this plan that may result in the removal of 29,000 trees. He thought the residents have shown a willingness to work with the Applicant.

Member Papp thought the evergreen wall was a good idea for the buffer between the homes and the industrial park. He stated that the Applicant should not be so imposing on the woodlands and he should reduce the number of lots in the park to assist in preserving the woods.

Member Markham agreed with the other Commissioners. She thought that the Applicant was trying to put too many lots on this property. She stated that the timing of the evergreen screen planting should be done first, regardless of the Applicant’s perceived irrigation problems. The residents will be looking at construction for years to come and therefore it’s appropriate for the screening to go in first.

Member Ruyle stated that he is a true believer in a tree inventory for each parcel. He didn’t support the Applicant’s suggestion to overcompensate the tree fund if the trees can be saved. He noted that the new plan now enters a section of the property where the trees haven’t been surveyed. He said the tree fund does not need money; there are ample funds already. He cannot support the destruction of 29,000 trees.

Member Sprague thought the plan did not address the fact that the property is an environmentally sensitive area. He would support tabling the plan or giving it a negative recommendation.

Chair Nagy stated that she sat on the Planning Commission during the approval process for Phase One of the property. She appreciated the fact that during that phase there were no environmental impacts caused by the developer. She is disappointed in this proposal because of the impacts of this basically over-built plan. The Woodlands Ordinance is vital to this City. The residents of this area have come forward and are aware that something is going to be built on this property but they have not found the level of cooperation they have been seeking.

Chair Nagy asked what the acreage is for the wetlands on the parcel. Mr. Schmitt responded that Wetland "A" is seven acres on this parcel. Dr. Tilton stated that there are no proposals to fill any of this wetland area in, other than perhaps a little bit a fill right where the road comes in, which allows for some pipes and stormwater access. Wetland "B" is 14,844 sf, which is about one-third of an acre. Chair Nagy asked that in the future more information be listed the plans that are provided to the Planning Commission – acreage, essential or non-essential designations, impacts, etc.

Dr. Tilton stated that Wetland "B" and "D" are impacted the most. Wetland "D" is 12,610 sf, also about a third of an acre. Those two are proposed to be completely filled during the road construction process. Chair Nagy stated that the City’s Ordinance reads that only one-quarter of an acre can be filled.

Chair Nagy stated that too large of a burden would be placed on future developers regarding the replacement of the woodlands. She noted how many parcels would need to get Special Land Use approval and she was not sure if they would meet the Ordinance requirements. She would like to see the Applicant go back and design the parcel with less lots; she suggested that lots 17 and 25 be removed.

Chair Nagy stated that there are alternatives that could result in a win-win resolution. The City is looking to protect the natural features. The woods are regulated and the Applicant’s plan should be in compliance. It is important for the City to compromise, but Chair Nagy said this proposal goes beyond compromise.

City Attorney Tom Schultz thought it was important to point out that, as Mr. Schmitt said in his review, the consultants’ reviews all indicate that the plan meets the requirements. It is important to point that out because it results from a different view of how the Ordinances work and what the Planning Commission’s and the City’s functions are here. Chair Nagy interjected that there is more than one thing that the Planning Commission can approve.

Mr. Schultz continued that in light of Dr. Tilton’s comments, it appeared that the Planning Commission is concerned primarily with the Woodlands Ordinance and the site plan. One is a police powers Ordinance for which the Planning Commission acts as the body for deciding; the other is a Zoning Ordinance that we adopt under the state law. Starting with the Woodlands Ordinance, one of the fundamental differences that results in the different review and the recommendation from the Consultants is that from the perspective of the Staff the Woodlands Ordinance is about giving permits to cut down trees. It is not about planning the site unless the site plan that is before the Planning Commission shows building envelopes and actual intrusion and cutting of trees. The actual cutting of trees in this case (the Ordinance may read "removing trees" or "clearing land") really is just for the utilities and the road. There are three areas where the plan proposes tree removals - two sections on Cartier and one on Nadlan Court.

Mr. Schultz continued that the professional reviews indicate the plan meets requirements from their point of view (not binding on the Planning Commission obviously), because there are actually not a lot of trees being removed in those areas, and the location of the roads is kind of set. Even if the Planning Commission looks at Mr. Mutch’s drawing, the roads don’t actually change much – there is one road moved to the south but Cartier Drive pretty much stays where it is. The difference in the drawings has to do with proposed development of the areas to the north of Cartier Drive. That is the area depicted as not improved in Mr. Mutch’s drawing. From his perspective, improvement of the property is not really what is before the Planning Commission at this meeting. What is before the Planning Commission tonight is the roadway, and the trees being removed for the roadway. The Woodlands Ordinance says you give a permit for cutting and removing trees. It doesn’t lay out the development, which is done by the Zoning Ordinance.

Getting to that Ordinance, Mr. Schultz said the question that is before the Planning Commission is purely and simply, is there a Zoning Ordinance provision that those lots, as proposed on the layout presented by the Applicant, don’t meet? He posed the question in that manner because when the Planning Commission goes to make its motion, they will need two separate motions: one on the site plan and one on woodlands. The Planning Commission will need to indicate precisely what Ordinance provisions the site plan doesn’t meet, and which ones aren’t met relative to the woodlands issue. The reason why it must be laid out as such is because the appeals on those two issues go in two separate directions. The Woodlands Ordinance provides that a denial, if that was the motion (and based on the comments made, Mr. Schultz addressed it in that manner), the plan then goes to City Council. The question that they will review is the substantive provisions of a denial of a permit to cut the trees shown on Cartier Drive, Nadlan Court and the extension of the main road.

Mr. Schultz continued that the site plan, if denied, would be appealed to the ZBA, and they will need to know which provisions of the Zoning Ordinance the Planning Commission was relying on when it denied the approval. The Staff reports don’t identify any such provisions, and if the motion is going to be to deny, it must reference Zoning Ordinance provisions and not simply the Woodlands Ordinance. If the basis for denial of the site plan is the Planning Commission doesn’t want to act on that until the Woodlands issue is resolved on appeal to the City Council (or Circuit Court after that), then that ought to be indicated and the Planning Commission’s action might be different. The issue here, and the reasons why the Consultants’ reports indicate what they indicate, is that they’re looking for particular standards and the Planning Commission’s motions are going to need to identify particular standards in both of those Ordinances that aren’t met.

Chair Nagy stated that she understood everything Mr. Schultz said, and she understood where he was going with his comments. She stated that, based upon the fact that the blue prints were given to the Planning Commission for the approval of utilities and roads and therefore no other site plan design is possible based on the placement of those roads and utilities, the Planning Commission is in somewhat of a bind. It is very difficult to differentiate the fact that this road and utility plan is independent of the lot plan. She understood that Mr. Schultz wanted the Planning Commission to be very specific in their motion. She asked if the Planning Commission could table the plan because they are unwilling to approve it without further change, and predicated upon those changes, the Woodlands Permit is withheld.

Mr. Schultz responded that tabling the site plan does not address the fact that this is the plan that the developer plans on going with. Tabling is appropriate if the Planning Commission is asking for additional information from the Staff or seeking factual information that relates to its ability to decide on the proposed plan. If the Planning Commission is tabling it because they don’t like the plan and they want it changed, Mr. Schultz assumed that the Developer will respond by stating that they will not be changing it and then they will go on to the next Board, which they have that right to do. Tabling would not be solving anything.

Mr. Schultz repeated what he thought was Chair Nagy’s question: If the Planning Commission approves the plan for roads and utilities aren’t they essentially approving the lot line layouts? His answer was, absolutely. Chair Nagy said that was her point, and Mr. Schultz responded that it seemed to be both of their points. However, the difference of opinion is, when the Planning Commission is reviewing the plan against the Woodlands Ordinance, and they are trying to accomplish the preservation of the site’s natural features, the issues that can be used to deny the request have to do with the trees affected by the development proposed – the roadway primarily.

Chair Nagy responded that the plan does impact the trees. Mr. Schultz said that any plan will impact the trees on this site unless there is a dedication or preservation of that area depicted as blank in Mr. Mutch’s drawing. He thought that seemed to be the area that everyone was focusing on. He reiterated that any road on that property is going to go by those trees. If the Planning Commission is asking the developer not to draw the lot lines in the wooded areas, that is not a Woodlands Ordinance issue. The Woodlands Ordinance is about cutting trees; creating the lot lines is a Zoning Ordinance issue. He stated again that the Planning Commission needs to cite a provision in the Zoning Ordinance where these standards can be found.

Chair Nagy asked the Applicant if they would put in a different plan if this plan was tabled. Mr. Sosin responded that they have been good citizens in this City. They have been paying the number one, two or three highest taxes in this community. They are the largest landowner in the City of Novi. They have brought Trinity Health’s corporate headquarters, FCI, Paychex, Best Buy, Magna, D-Space and have tried to be good citizens. They have responded to the issues while the site plan depicted in the drawing presented by Mr. Mutch will greatly increase the flow of lights going on to Bristol Corners. Also, it will never be approved because of the safety issue - where Cartier and Hudson come together - because there is no viewpoint line there. Mr. Sosin stated that they have used professionals, and the City has used professionals and they have come up with what they believe is a good plan. He said they were not asking the Planning Commission to approve buildings on those sites, they have that right later on. Mr. Sosin said that objective standards were followed. He believes their plan is good and he asked the Planning Commission to deny it rather than table it if they chose not to approve it.

Chair Nagy responded that the Planning Commission understood that there are two separate issues here and that the Applicant has been a good neighbor in Novi. She said that no one was relying on Mr. Mutch’s plan.

Mr. Sosin said that approving this plan does not mean this is the end of the story for this property. He stated that they have lived up to the rules and the City has agreed and that is why Mr. Schultz said what he said. At some point in the future if a building is presented for a lot and the Planning Commission doesn’t like it because of rules and regulations and objective standards, and the Staff says so, then it can be acted on. The economic issues that were alluded to in the discussion are the issues of the business world and he assured the Planning Commission that the developer will do or has done the factoring of costs into this property. He respectfully requested that the Planning Commission approve what has been presented, and if not, he asked that they deny it.

Chair Nagy understood his concerns, but if the road was laid out like the plan indicates, when a developer comes forward to develop lot 17, for example, the Planning Commission will be quoting from the various Ordinances that support their rejecting the plan. She questioned whether the City will then have numerous applicants going to the ZBA for variances.

Mr. Schultz asked that the Planning Commission and Mr. Sosin be clear about one thing: his comments were directed to the form of the motion, he was not telling the Planning Commission what to make their motion. With regard to the layout of the streets, there was a lot of discussion administratively as to whether this plan even had to come before the Planning Commission for the road placement. The City essentially requested that they come with a site plan showing the lot lines so the Planning Commission could see what the concept of the development might be. There is certainly, on the part of the developer, a point of view that they conceded something when they brought forward this plan. They initially argued that they only needed a land improvement permit issued administratively from the City. The City disagreed and argued that they would have to come before the Planning Commission for the road approval. Arguably, they didn’t need to put the unit lines in there because the improvement is the road and the utilities, which is a permitted use in the district. The questions would be, again, what trees are they cutting down? Does it leave enough buildable area in terms of meeting Ordinance requirements for lot sizes? Novi does not have a minimum lot size for these units.

Chair Nagy asked about the trees that were cut down for the supposed winter wheat. She asked if those were part of the 29,000 trees. She stated that with all due respect there has been a breakdown. She chose not to say anything else.

Mr. Schultz said Beck North was an extreme example because it affects a very significant residential development within the City. In every community that has a tree protection or replacement ordinance, it is frustrating to its Planning Commission because a developer comes before them and gets approval for a road layout and then someone else comes in to develop and cuts down the trees. It’s happened before in this town and will probably happen again because that’s the way the Ordinance is set up, and unless there is an Ordinance provision that says the Planning Commission can require dedication of these areas and insist on non-development of these areas, then there is a real site plan issue coming down the road when the people come in to develop the individual lots. The Planning Commission will review those just as they always do with each of these lots. One of the reasons there are optional forms of development (cluster, open space, etc.) is so that the Planning Commission can give some benefit to the developer so they will agree not to develop these environmentally sensitive areas.

Chair Nagy agreed with Mr. Schultz but said those options are not for industrial sites. She said she did not want to belabor the point. The fact that the City does have a Woodlands Protection Ordinance is very relevant to what is going on with this site plan. She understood about the layout and the utilities and everything that is being talked about, but Chair Nagy felt that if the Planning Commission approved this plan then they are stuck with this lot plan because that is what this developer wants to do – put in thirty buildings. It may meet Ordinance requirements to a certain degree, but it really doesn’t in other degrees – like when they come in for individual site plans. Chair Nagy thinks the Planning Commission has been put in quite a position, starting from the very beginning. She stated that with all due respect, there has been a failure somewhere along the line and now the Planning Commission is stuck with it.

Mr. Schultz just asked that the motion be clear about the bases for their decisions so that the two reviewing entities can know what the issues are before they are asked to review the plan. Chair Nagy said she understood.

Mr. Sosin addressed Chair Nagy and said he wanted to make it clear that this submitted plan is indeed the plan that they are going to stay with. Chair Nagy said she understood.

Member Avdoulos stated that Mr. Schultz must understand this situation as well as the Planning Commission does, that there is a site plan that indicates road placement. Now the Planning Commission is being asked to approve this plan, with the future development of the site being as yet invisible. The plan is basically a piece of property with concrete and curbs. The Planning Commission and the residents feel that if this plan goes through as is, even if it meets the Ordinance, it is almost irresponsible to say go ahead to the developer. They are trying to take into account what will happen in the future and therefore plan for that. As a Planning Commission and as a Planning Department it is not, in the opinion of the Planning Commission, proper planning. The Planning Commission would be reacting, if they go ahead and approve this plan and then worry about what comes up in the future at a later date. That’s what has been getting this Body into the long meetings month after month to begin with. There’s always something that has to happen with the Woodlands. There are variance requests. There are driveway spacing waiver issues. There is a multitude of plans that comes before the Planning Commission where the initial planning was not thought through. The concerns of those abutting this property were not taken seriously into account if just a little jockeying was done to address some of the concerns. Member Avdoulos tried to look at this property from a zoning standpoint, but the thought returned that approving this plan is like approving something that is unknown. If there was a way to resolve a motion that would be positive for the developer and for the residents and for the City, Member Avdoulos would support that motion.

Member Ruyle listened to the attorney and he concluded that the Planning Commission does not have to approve this plan, but it would behoove them to approve it. He asked if anyone from Amson Dembs was at the meeting. He asked that it be put on record if Amson Dembs is going to be the buyer of this property, when they get to develop it they are going to be facing nine angry people. He said he was in a quandary, just like the other eight Commissioners, because they don’t like what is in front of them but the recommendation by all of the consultants is to approve it. As the attorney has pointed out, the Planning Commission is looking at a road plan and nothing else at this time. Member Ruyle said that he would probably vote against a motion to deny.

Member Markham asked to be put on record in response to the Applicant’s comment that professionals from both his company and City have looked at this plan. She stated that she is not a professional but she brings a unique perspective to the role of Planning Commissioner and she takes it very seriously, as do the other eight Members. They bring the perspective of the residents of Novi. She cares about whether large stands of trees are taken down as well as the comment made by Member Avdoulos that this would be a badly designed development. She thinks creative things could be done with this property to achieve a substantial number of buildings while using the wetlands and woodlands as enhanced features. This would make it even more desirable to potential businesses coming into Novi. She said there is a passage in the Ordinance that says the Planning Commission’s role is to protect the most desirable use of land in accordance with a well-considered plan, to protect the character and established pattern of adjacent development (which she considered to be Bristol Corners), and in each area to conserve the value of land and buildings and other structures and to protect the City’s tax revenue. Member Markham did not think the site plan as laid out – the roads and the implied lot lines – meets the intent of that language.

Member Kocan said that the Planning Commission needed to determine whether to deny this plan or postpone it. She gathered that the Planning Commission was leaning more toward a denial. Before she gave the motion, she acknowledged that she was citing the Ordinances located by Member Paul for the Beck North motion made back in June, and then Member Kocan thanked her for her efforts. She also noted that there is another Ordinance number, 2516.3.c on page 3346 which says, "Preliminary Site Plan Approval by the Planning Commission, or when required by the City Council, establishes site development feasibility." She felt that it was improper for the Planning Commission to say the roads as presented on this plan are not going to impact future development. She said that she would have less of a problem with this plan if the lot lines were removed from the woodlands area, because that would suggest that there will not be development on those lots. The submitted plan suggests that 100% of the trees are going to be removed from certain lots.

Moved by Member Kocan, supported by Member Sprague:

Mr. Schultz asked that the following reference be removed from the motion as it relates only to imposing conditions on the granting of an approval: The site plan does not meet the standards under 2516.d.1 due to the fact the natural resources, the health, safety and welfare as well as the social and economic wellbeing of those who use the land, residents and landowners immediately adjacent to the proposed land use or activity and the community as a whole are affected. Mr. Schultz explained that this information is quoted directly out of the state statute for approving special land uses and is used in connection with an approval. Member Kocan removed the sentence because of inapplicability.

Member Kocan then said she would insert the following text in its stead: The site plan does not meet the standards under 1900.4 due to the fact the site plan does not, "…protect the most desirable use of the land in accordance with a well-considered plan or protect the character and established pattern of adjacent development and in each area in order to conserve the value of the land and buildings and other structures, and to protect the City’s tax revenue" because it negatively impacts the abutting residential and potential corporate developments within the park itself.

Member Sprague, as seconder of the motion, accepted those changes.

Mr. Sosin asked for some clarification from the Chair as to how the wetlands, woodlands and stormwater issues would be addressed. Mr. Schultz suggested that the Stormwater management Plan is a part of this denial and could be listed in the motion for clarification. Although Member Kocan acknowledged this, no specific change was made to the motion. She asked about the site condominium issue but Mr. Schultz said that didn’t need to be listed separately.

Mr. Schmitt asked Member Kocan to restate the Sections that she referred to so that the transcriber could include the language in the minutes.

Section 2516.3:

Preliminary Site Plans. Action on a site plan shall be taken by the Planning Commission when one of the following conditions exists:

a. All requirements for Preliminary Site Plan approval, as set forth herein, are met and a recommendation for approval has been forwarded to the Planning Commission by an authorized administrative official of the City, or in those instances where a recommendation for disapproval is rendered, where the applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission resolve a disagreement between the applicant and the official recommending disapproval relative to an interpretation of applicable review standards.

b. A site plan, by request of the applicant, needs an official denial by the Planning Commission in order to gain access to the Zoning Board of Appeals.

c. In those instances where approval authority is vested with the City Council, a recommendation shall be made by the Planning Commission to the City Council.

Preliminary Site Plan Approval by the Planning Commission or, when required, by the City Council, establishes site development feasibility.

3. Preliminary Site Plans. Action on a site plan shall be taken by the Planning Commission when one of the following conditions exists:

c. In those instances where approval authority is vested with the City Council, a recommendation shall be made by the Planning Commission to the City Council.

Preliminary Site Plan Approval by the Planning Commission or, when required, by the City Council, establishes site development feasibility.

The I-1 Light Industrial District is intended to encourage innovations and variety in type, design and arrangement of land uses, but at all times to protect neighboring residential districts from any adverse impacts. The I-1 District is designed so as to primarily accommodate research, office and light industrial uses, including wholesale activities, warehouses, and industrial operations whose external, physical effects are restricted to the area of the district and in no manner affect in a detrimental way any of the surrounding districts. The District is designed to encourage unified complexes of research, office and light industrial uses, with high tech and multi-use facilities characterized by office, light industrial and warehousing activities in a planned environment. The I-1 District is so structured as to permit, along with any specified uses, the manufacturing, compounding, processing, packaging, assembly or treatment of finished or semifinished products from previously prepared material. It is further intended that the processing of raw material for shipment in bulk form, to be used in an industrial operation at another location, not be permitted.

The general goals of this use district include, among others, the following specific purposes:

4. To protect the most desirable use of land in accordance with a well considered plan. To protect the character and established pattern of adjacent development, and in each area to conserve the value of land and buildings and other structures, and to protect the City's tax revenue.

Motion carried 8-1 (Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Paul, Shroyer, Sprague; No: Ruyle).

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Paul:

Mr. Schultz asked for clarification on the motion. He asked if the first item was in regard to a tree inventory, and if so, he wanted to make clear that under Section 37-28.a.4.b, there is an indication that for Woodland areas where there is no development, sampling methods may be used instead of an actual field survey. He asked if it was the Planning Commission’s interpretation of that Section that this layout presumes future development so that this Section is interpreted not to apply. Member Kocan stated that was exactly the case, because this site plan presumes development.

The Planning Commission discussed the lettering of the wetlands on the map, since two were both labeled "B". Member Paul stated that it stands to reason that the northern wetland (between 12 and 13) is actually "E" because above it there is a wetland "F". Chair Nagy stated that the MDEQ has already granted permits for the wetlands. Mr. Coburn stated that the northerly wetland along Cartier is labeled later in the plans as wetland "F". The wetland down by Nadlan is wetland "B". Member Paul reiterated that the wetland by number 17 is "F"; the wetland between 12 and 13 is a wetland labeled "B"; further down by lot nine there is a wetland "D". Wetland "C" is at lots three and four. There is also a wetland "B" listed at lot 24. Therefore, the wetland at 12 and 13 is "E". Mr. Schmitt clarified that on other pages that wetland is properly noted as wetland "E". He stated that the two that are being filled in are wetlands "B" and "E", which as Mr. Coburn pointed out, is listed on sheet SP-5.

Member Kocan asked if there were two wetlands lettered "F". Mr. Coburn stated that the wetland has two fingers, labeled "F1" and "F2". Member Kocan asked about the bottom of the plan, below the dissipation basin "A". Mr. Schmitt confirmed that it is one large wetland that is in Wixom, behind the Springs and is partially on this property.

Member Kocan asked Mr. Schultz if a reason to deny the Wetland Permit could be that the Applicant does not have a Preliminary Site Plan approval. He responded that based on Dr. Tilton’s letter, that stipulation would probably be the best basis on which to deny the permit – in light of the fact that the development is not proceeding forward because of the first two motions.

Moved by Member Kocan, supported by Member Paul:

There was no further discussion so Mr. Schmitt called the roll.

Motion carried 8-1. (Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Paul, Ruyle, Sprague; No: Shroyer)

Chair Nagy called for a five minute break.

Consideration of the request of Gary Jonna for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan. The subject property is located in Section 4 located in Beck North Corporate Park on the north side of West Road East of Beck Road in the (I-1) Light Industrial District. The Applicant is proposing two speculative non-separated mixed-use office buildings, south bldg - 8,069 square foot, north bldg - 11,983 square foot. The subject property is 2.02acres.

Planner Darcy Schmitt stated that the Applicant is seeking approvals for his Preliminary Site Plan and Stormwater Management Plan for two buildings, although they were reviewed as one unit – as if they were going to join units 1 and 4. The south project was previously approved for Youngsoft with a duel access drive that would line up with the approved one story office building on the opposite side of Hudson Drive.

She used an aerial photo to show that the north and west parcels are vacant. There is a wetland west of the north building, and the parcel east of the north building is also vacant. Hudson Drive is to the west, and West Road is to the south.

The subject properties and the surrounding properties are zoned I-1 and are also master planned for light industrial. Both sites are using an access drive that lines up directly across the street from the one story building to the east. There is a secondary access drive to the north. The north building has a setback from the entrance drive of approximately 24 feet. The south building has a setback from the drive of approximately 14 feet.

The Planning Review indicated that the site plan meets the Ordinance requirements, with units one and four joined into one. There are a few minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

The Wetlands Review meets the requirements, with some minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. There are no regulated woodlands on the site. The Landscape, Traffic, Façade, Engineering and the Fire Department reviews all indicate that the project meets the requirements of the Ordinance, with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. Ms. Schmitt showed the façade board to the Planning Commission.

Gary Jonna, 27750 Middlebelt Road, Farmington Hills, addressed the Planning Commission. He explained that there once was a site plan approval for unit one (the south parcel) for Youngsoft. That approval included a waiver for a shared access drive and a wetland buffer impact waiver. There was also a lot of discussion about the driveway aligning with the parcel that had not yet been approved. Since then, Novi Tech has been approved, and the driveway was shifted on this site plan to align with that project. Mr. Jonna said they maintained the access to the north to allow for connection to a future development. The Youngsoft Company has now decided not to proceed, therefore Mr. Jonna and his company are now developing the site. The major distinction between the Youngsoft plan and this one is the addition of the 12,000 sf building. Mr. Jonna said that Kevin Biddison, the project architect, was at the meeting and could field questions.

Mr. Jonna said the project will include a greenbelt along West Road and Hudson Drive. They were able shield a majority of the parking by the building. They consider this site the gateway to Beck North and they are trying to create an "image" development. Both buildings coming forward in this manner allows the Planning Commission to see the whole picture. The architecture is compatible between the two proposed buildings. The building has convenient visitor parking, some drama to the entrances and an appeal from West Road.

Mr. Jonna stated that his company forwarded two letters through Biddison Architects dated July 24, 2003 to the Planning Commission that address the issues in all of the review letters. The Applicant has stated that they intend to meet all of the requirements and adopt all of the comments of the various consultants and the Planning Department. Mr. Jonna concluded his comments by stating that although they have submitted this plan as one plan, they have determined that there are too many advantages (separate tax IDs, for example) in having two parcels and therefore they will be taking the necessary steps to split the property. As a result of this decision, the Planning Commission will at some point in time have to consider the Applicant’s request for a waiver of the ten-foot sideyard parking setback requirement in order for them to accomplish this goal. He told this information to the Planning Commission because he felt that full disclosure of their intentions was important and the proper thing to do.

Member Paul thanked the Applicant for bringing forth a plan that met all of the requirements, and providing a letter that states they will address all of the outstanding issues. She supported the project.

Moved by Member Paul, seconded by Member Ruyle:

Plan and Stormwater Management Plan subject to: 1) Units One and Four being joined into one unit by amending the Master Deed and providing the necessary letters of support from current unit owners within the condominium site; 2) Comments on the attached review letters being addressed on the Final Site Plan approval; and 3) If, at the time of Final Site Plan approval, the Applicant submits a plan that shows two separate parcels, a Waiver is granted for the ten-foot sideyard parking setback pursuant to Section 2400, as the Applicant has provided adequate setback elsewhere.

Member Kocan confirmed with the Applicant that he is continuing to work with the City on relocating the dumpster out of the wetland buffer.

Member Markham noted that in the traffic consultant’s review, the splitting of the parcels will result in the south parcel having five spaces necessary for the north parcel’s parking space count. Mr. Schultz said that a cross-access easement could be done to address that issue. Member Markham asked whether that information should be made part of the motion and Mr. Schultz confirmed that it should. Member Paul agreed to add those words to her motion and Member Ruyle, the seconder of the motion, approved of the addition.

Member Ruyle commented that the Planning Commission has dealt with this Applicant before and he has done everything he has said he would do. Member Ruyle likes to see plans come before the Planning Commission that say "Meets Requirements" in all disciplines. He also liked that the Applicant readily agrees to make changes based on the Consultants’ review letters.

Chair Nagy said the buildings will indeed make a nice gateway into the project. She supported the motion and called for the vote.

Plan and Stormwater Management Plan subject to: 1) Units One and Four being joined into one unit by amending the Master Deed and providing the necessary letters of support from current unit owners within the condominium site; 2) Comments on the attached review letters being addressed on the Final Site Plan approval; 3) If, at the time of Final Site Plan approval, the Applicant submits a plan that shows two separate parcels, a Waiver is granted for the ten-foot sideyard parking setback pursuant to Section 2400, as the Applicant has provided adequate setback elsewhere; and 4) If the Applicant separates the parcels, a Cross-access Easement must be executed to address Unit One’s five parking spaces that are necessary for Unit Four’s parking space count.

Consideration of the request of Northern Equities for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan. The subject property is located in Section 12 located on Cabot Drive between Twelve and Thirteen Mile roads in the (OST) Office Service Technology District. The Applicant is proposing a 37,354 square foot single-story, speculative, research/office building. The subject property is 3.591 acres.

Planner Tim Schmitt located the property on an aerial photo. He also located the Paychex and Magna buildings and the Lewis Technology Center, which was a proposal similar to the subject development. The entire area is zoned OST and is master planned for office.

There are just a few items remaining to be addressed prior to the Final Site Plan submittal. The Planning Review indicated that the parcel needs to be created through the City Assessor’s Office. This park began as one big parcel and as each development came forth the property has been split to accommodate those projects. This method has made the development of the park easier, as the new parcels are appropriately sized for their intended buildings.

The Landscape Review noted minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. The Traffic Review indicated that the Applicant should either provide a stub to the north property or an acceptable access plan for the adjacent lot without the stub must be submitted. This parcel has two access points; however, the northern property will require a second access and it must be demonstrated that if this property does not provide a stub, there is still an second access alternative available for the north property. Mr. Schmitt said that the Applicant could provide detail on how the northern property will have two access points without the stub street design on this parcel. Their plan would not require driveway spacing waivers either.

The Engineering Review indicated some minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. The Facade Review indicated that the building is in compliance. The Fire Department Review provided no comment. The Applicant has submitted a letter to the Planning Commission that addresses the outstanding issues on this plan and notes their intention to comply with all the comments made by the consultants. His letter also noted that the Applicant will provide the north property’s access plan at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

Joe Drolshagen of Northern Equities addressed the Planning Commission. He stated that the northern parcel will likely be a build-to-suit because of the unique shape of the property. Two drives with appropriate spacing can be easily accommodated by this property.

Member Shroyer stated that a new Landscape Ordinance anticipated by the City will require that no parking lot have runs of spaces greater than fifteen. He noted that this plan has four extra spaces (169 provided versus 165 required) and he asked whether the Applicant would consider making four landscaped islands. Mr. Drolshagen responded that the market is calling for a full five spaces per 1,000 feet, and without this amenity for example, Northern Equities would not have gotten the Paychex project or the first tenant for their Lewis Technology Center. Mr. Drolshagen said in order to compensate for the massive parking lot they have provided additional green space adjacent to the building. While they are providing more parking than required, they are providing less than the market demand.

Motioned by Member Ruyle, seconded by Member Paul:

Member Kocan stated that she thought no solution was necessary for the north property’s access. Mr. Schmitt responded that by stating it in the motion it alleviates the concerns brought forward by Birchler Arroyo. Member Kocan asked whether it should be stated that this plan would be approved without that condition. Mr. Schmitt said that would be fair, so that the north property is not a burden to this development. Mr. Schultz also agreed, and said that if the access becomes an issue, the Applicant can work with the City administratively to resolve that problem. Mr. Drolshagen clarified that the site plan under consideration does have a secondary access, and he is aware that the north property would also need to have two access points, and it will most likely be provided in the manner shown on the plans provided. Mr. Schultz said that this issue then doesn’t need to be part of the motion. Member Ruyle agreed to remove that stipulation from the motion, and Member Paul accepted the change.

Member Kocan asked whether it was just in the Light Industrial District that frontyard parking is not allowed. Mr. Schmitt responded that the OSC, I-1 and I-2 districts have restrictions on frontyard parking.

Member Avdoulos liked the aesthetics of this building. He asked to see the façade board. He then asked about the turning radiuses and confirmed with the Applicant that the Fire Marshal has approved of the plan.

Motion carried 9-0.

Mr. Drolshagen stated that in the past, projects that met the intent of the Ordinance were placed on the Consent Agenda for their Final Site Plan approval, and while he was not asking the Planning Commission to say yes or no to that request tonight, he stated that it certainly would help matters if this plan were handled as such, especially if the Consultants and everyone agrees beforehand. The Applicant actually thought they were presenting this plan for both Preliminary Site Plan and Final Site Plan simultaneously, which is allowed under the Ordinance, so he asked for clarification. Chair Nagy stated that this Planning Commission does not ever approve both at the same time. Mr. Schmitt explained that in situations like a building extension, the Preliminary Site Plan and Final Site Plan have been done simultaneously.

Consideration of the request of GMPC for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan. The subject property is located in Section 25 located on the east side of Meadowbrook Road and south of Ten Mile in the (B-1) Business District. The Applicant is proposing a third phase building addition at 6,200 square feet. The subject property is 2.0661 acres.

Ms. Schmitt located the property on an aerial photo. It is zoned B-1 and is master planned for office. To the north is a bank (master planned for local commercial). To the east is the Willowbrook Estates subdivision (master planned for single family residential). To the west is the Orchard Hills subdivision (zoned B-1 and master planned for local commercial). The property to the south is zoned R-4 (master planned for single family residential).

Ms. Schmitt also showed the proposed addition on the overhead projector. She stated that there will be no additional exterior lighting but there will be some additional landscaping.

The Planning Review indicated that the plan meets the requirements, with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. There are no wetlands or woodlands on the site. The Landscape, Traffic, Engineering and Façade reviews all indicated minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. There was no façade board as this addition will match the existing building.

Mr. George Norberg of Seiber Keast and Associates addressed the Planning Commission. This is the engineering firm for the project. He indicated that the Planning Commission received a letter from the project’s owner stating he will comply with all of the comments made by the Staff and Consultants. This plan represents the third phase of this building which was built in 1997. The parking lot was existing and the Applicant removed about fifteen spaces to bring the project into compliance with the current landscape requirements. The fire hydrant was extended. He asked for both Preliminary Site Plan and Final Site Plan approval, subject to the Applicant addressing the outstanding issues. The Planning Commission briefly discussed what the request actually was before them, and determined that it was just the Preliminary Site Plan approval and the Final Site Plan approval would be done administratively.

Member Markham restated Mr. Hogan’s request that handicapped parking not be placed near dumpster areas. She asked whether the Applicant could further describe the location of their dumpster. Mr. Norberg noted that generally speaking they provide a concrete apron around a dumpster location to prevent the problem of divots in the asphalt. He stated that this dumpster is in the southeast corner, well away from any of the handicapped parking spaces.

Member Avdoulos noted that there was a request that the handicapped parking be placed closer to the entrances, which he thought could be easily done. He then asked Mr. Lance Shipman, City Landscape Architect, about his review. He noted that there was a request for tree species variation, in light of the emerald ash borer situation. The Applicant responded that they would replace the ash trees with Bradford pears. Mr. Shipman responded that he was requesting more variety than just the Bradford pear. Member Avdoulos stated that the site already has crabapple and maple trees, and he asked Mr. Shipman if he was requesting even more variation. Mr. Shipman replied that they are looking for diversity, and there is an opportunity to provide this from a design standpoint. A variation would differentiate the trees adjacent to parking from the trees adjacent to the building.

Member Avdoulos commented that the 200 ash trees being replaced at the Arboretum at Twelve Mile and Drake are all being replaced by one species. The landscape architect associated with that project thought that it was a better option than to introduce a mixture of trees that would be similar to wearing a checkerboard shirt with striped pants and a polka-dot tie. That landscape architect also noted that there is a difference in how trees get disease, and what kinds of disease jump from tree to tree. He asked Mr. Shipman what alternatives he was suggesting. Mr. Shipman replied that the variations are listed in several places, including the Woodlands Ordinance. He also said that the onus is placed on their landscape architect, so that the City is not over-influencing their design, it is just providing the Applicant with the opportunity to make the change themselves. Member Avdoulos also agreed with Mr. Shipman’s comment that trees could be provided in the parking lot islands.

Moved by Member Ruyle, seconded by Member Paul:

Member Paul asked the Applicant whether he would consider abiding by the new Landscape Ordinance that is under consideration by the City Council for adoption. Mr. Norberg said he could not agree to that suggestion without knowing the effect that the Ordinance would have on this project. Additionally, Mr. Norberg stated that this plan has been in under review since the beginning of the year and is therefore a solidified plan at this time. Chair Nagy interjected that while Member Paul’s intentions were good, the Applicant would hardly be able to agree to the request without knowing what impacts would be made to his plan.

Member Paul asked Mr. Shipman to work with this Applicant in the final moments between the Preliminary Site Plan and the Final Site Plan approval to help him accommodate the new Landscape Ordinance. Mr. Shipman said he would do so if that were the wishes of the Planning Commission, but the Planning Department is really trying to avoid making these requests until the Ordinance is actually adopted, because it is still changing. Member Paul said that the Ordinance has already had one positive reading and will probably be passed; she was trying to give the Planning Department some direction from at least her.

Member Shroyer commented that the adoption of the new Landscape Ordinance will be soon, and that for this site plan, one of the requirements of the new Ordinance could be easily met just by moving a landscaped island a few spaces east. He too, would appreciate Mr. Shipman working with the Applicant on making these changes.

Member Shroyer asked about the parking lot requirement discrepancies. One account says 97 spaces are necessary; another says 92. One report says the site has 110 spaces; another says 116 and yet another says 114, while Member Shroyer himself counts 115. He then stated that it wasn’t a crucial mistake, as the Applicant has provided more than they need. He did ask that the Planning Department review items like this more closely in the future. He supported the motion.

Chair Nagy also supported the motion. She asked the Applicant if changes were planned for the area near the building facing the bank. The Applicant was not able to respond at this time.

Chair Nagy spoke directly to the Planning Commission regarding the proposed Landscape Ordinance and the fact that it is under consideration by the City Council. She appreciates the fact that the Commissioners would like to see current Applicants comply with the new Ordinance, but it is not the Ordinance under which their project has been reviewed and she asked them to please bear that in mind. She said that it would be difficult for an Applicant to agree to meet the terms of this proposed Ordinance if they don’t know what the language of the Ordinance is, and that she fears that Applicants may be feeling pressured to comply with an Ordinance that they really have no reason to meet its terms. Chair Nagy called for the vote.

Member Kocan noted that based on everyone’s request forms, most committees are filled but there are some vacancies. She went through each committee with the other Commissioners.

Master Plan and Zoning Committee: This is a four-member committee, currently made up by Members Nagy, Markham, Ruyle and Shroyer. Each of them has indicated that they would like to serve on this Committee again. Member Papp also indicated his interest but thought the current members should remain. Member Markham encouraged him to attend the meetings and it was determined that Member Papp could serve as an alternate.

Motioned by Member Kocan, supported by Member Paul:

Implementation Committee: This is a four-member committee, currently made up by Members Avdoulos, Kocan, Paul and Nagy, but Chair Nagy has declined this Committee membership for this year. Member Sprague asked to be considered for this Committee.

Motioned by Member Kocan, supported by Member Ruyle:

Rules Committee: Current-serving members (Kocan, Ruyle and Shroyer) have all requested to serve again. She noted that there is a meeting scheduled for August 6, 2003 at 6:15 p.m.

Motioned by Member Markham, supported by Member Paul:

Environmental Committee: This is a three-person committee with four people interested in serving. Currently Members Markham, Paul and Sprague are members and Member Papp is also interested. Member Paul asked whether all four members could be considered for the committee. Member Markham agreed to relinquish her position.

Motioned by Member Ruyle, seconded by Member Sprague:

Communication and Community Liaison: Members Avdoulos, Papp and Shroyer indicated they were interested in serving on this committee.

Motioned by Member Ruyle, seconded by Member Sprague:

Main Street Committee: Members Avdoulos and Papp are currently on that Committee and have expressed an interest in remaining on it.

Motioned by Member Ruyle, seconded by Member Paul:

Planning Studies and Budget: Members Paul and Sprague indicated their interest previously. Member Kocan has been serving on this Committee but is interested in moving on to the CIP Committee. Member Ruyle has also removed himself from this Committee. This Committee meets beginning in October and meets through March. Chair Nagy indicated that she would serve, as did Member Avdoulos.

Motioned by Member Ruyle, seconded by Member Paul:

Capital Improvement Program Committee: The rules were amended to require two members of the Planning Commission to join two members of the City Council for this Committee, with a third Planning Commissioner joining in on the preliminary discussions. Currently Member Sprague is a member and would like to remain. Member Kocan indicated her interest, and Member Markham indicated she would like to be the alternate.

Motioned by Member Sprague, seconded by Member Ruyle:

Member Shroyer asked that the City representatives for each of these Committees contact the new members, as there are obligations under the new By-laws that require meeting within a certain number of days after appointment for selecting a Chair, setting up objectives and goals, etc.

The Planning Commission handed in their corrections for incorporation.

Motioned by Member Ruyle, seconded by Member Paul:

The Planning Commission handed in their corrections for incorporation.

Motioned by Member Ruyle, seconded by Member Markham:

There was no Consent Agenda.

Letter from Ayres, Lewis, Norris and May: Member Paul stated that about a year and a half ago the City did not have any money for workshops, so Member Paul requested that Ayres, Lewis, Norris and May give the Planning Commission a workshop. They agreed to do so in conjunction with Tilton & Associates. She asked the Planning Commission when this could be arranged. She suggested that the Planning Commissioners be ready to discuss topics and possible meeting dates at the next meeting. It would take between an hour and an hour and one half for the workshop and then the Planning Commission could take a break before starting the remainder of the Agenda.

Chair Nagy thought that it was too difficult to choose a date for this when all the Planning Commissioners will need to be choosing dates to meet with their newly appointed Committees. Mr. Schmitt said that the Planning Department could follow up on this now that they have been made aware of the plan.

Chair Nagy also stated that the Agenda items are things that have first been discussed with the Implementation Committee. She thought it should be brought forward through the Planning Commission Officers. Member Paul asked if they could discuss it at the next meeting so that the Consultants would know what the plans are. Chair Nagy agreed.

Member Paul said that the Consultants would be willing to discuss anything. Dr. Tilton suggested that he talk about things that have failed, things that they thought would theoretically work in other communities. Member Paul said the Consultants have been kind and generous and requested that it be discussed at the next meeting.

Chair Nagy asked the Planning Commission if they wanted the seminars. Member Avdoulos thought there were some good suggestions for topics, and that it would be the most beneficial if it was held early in the evening. Chair Nagy thought that a conversation about failed ideas could be interesting.

There were no Special Reports.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Motioned by Member Ruyle, seconded by Member Paul:

Motion carried unanimously (9-0). The meeting adjourned at 12:15 p.m.

MON 8/25/03 CITY COUNCIL 7:30 PM

WED 9/03/03 PLANNING COMMISSION 7:30 PM

MON 9/08/03 CITY COUNCIL 7:30 PM

Transcribed by Jane Schimpf, August 12, 2003 Signature on File

Date approved: August 20, 2003 Donna Jernigan, Planning Assistant