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

Present: Members John Avdoulos, Victor Cassis, Richard Gaul (arrived late), Lynn Kocan, David Lipski (arrived late), Mark Pehrson, Lowell Sprague, Wayne Wrobel

Also Present: Barbara McBeth, Director of Planning; Tim Schmitt, Planner; Darcy Schmitt, Planner; Lance Shipman, Landscape Architect; Ben Croy, Civil Engineer; Dave Gillam, City Attorney

The meeting attendees recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Sprague:

No one from the audience wished to speak.

There was no Correspondence to share.

Chair Kocan said that the Budget Committee should plan on meeting soon, and the other Planning Commission Committees should forward any of their information to the Budget Committee for incorporation into the upcoming budget.

Chair Kocan said that the new meeting time for City Council is now 7:00 p.m.

Member Lipski arrived at 7:37 p.m.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth said that at the City Council meeting of October 18, 2004 two Planning Commission items were considered. The Island Lake RUD Amendment for the additional ten acres was approved. The Shannon Development rezoning request (for the north side of Twelve Mile, west of Novi Road) from R-A to OS-1 was approved.

There were no Consent Agenda items.

The Public Hearing was opened to hear comments on the City of Novi’s Updated Master Plan for Land Use.

Chair Kocan said that the Public Hearing is being heard at this meeting, and Staff has recommended that the Planning Commission hold the actual adoption of the Master Plan at a subsequent meeting, after the members have had a chance to consider the Public Hearing comments.

Planner Darcy Schmitt said that the Master Plan update is a multi-year culmination of the efforts of the citizens, the Master Plan and Zoning Committee, City Council, Planning Commission, Staff and Consultants. Planning for a rapidly growing community is not an easy task. The 2000 census report counted 47,386 residents and 18,732 households. This is a 43% increase from the 1990 census report. SEMCOG states that Novi’s current population now exceeds 50,000.

Ms. Schmitt said the housing mix is 61% single family, 30% multiple family and 9% mobile homes. Oakland County’s land use information indicates that the City is approximately 67% developed.

The Master Plan must balance land use to establish a diverse tax base that adequately supports public facilities and services. It must ensure that the infrastructure is capable of handling future development. It must protect natural features and provide adequate open space. It should establish and preserve community character. These are the key items that were considered during the Master Plan update.

The City, with assistance from Eastern Michigan University, completed a community attitude study in 2002. It was a random sample of 3,000 Novi residents. The results of the survey were presented to the Planning Commission in 2002 and can be found in the appendix of the Master Plan. These results provided a solid starting point to address the key issues of the City of Novi. Two public meetings were also held on September 29, 2003 and on January 24, 2004. Public opinion surveys were also provided at the meetings and off the internet.

In April 2004 the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation to City Council to approve the draft of the Master Plan update for distribution to surrounding communities and utilities as required by State law. In May 2004 City Council approved the distribution. Following the review period, the Oakland County Planning Department prepared a report of the surrounding communities and utilities companies for review and recommendation. In August 2004 Oakland County’s Coordinating Zoning Committee voted to endorse the County Planner’s review of the Master Plan and found that the Plan is not inconsistent with the plan of any other surrounding community.

This Public Hearing is one of the final stages of the Master Plan update. The final plan will be brought forward to the Planning Commission at a later date for adoption. Ms. Schmitt said that everyone involved should be commended for his or her dedication and enthusiasm.

Ms. Schmitt used the overhead projected to display a map of the areas where changes in land use have been proposed.

Chair Kocan was also thankful of the hard work of the Master Plan and Zoning Committee. She thanked Gwen Markham, Tim Shroyer and David Ruyle, three previous members of the Planning Commission and Master Plan and Zoning Committee.

Chair Kocan opened the floor for comment.

Chair Kocan closed the Public Hearing. She said that the Planning Commission will weigh this information and continue their review at a later date.

Member Avdoulos said that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee met and discussed the City Council comments on the Master Plan. They chose to bring these issues to the Planning Commission for a lengthier discussion, if necessary.

Member Cassis asked about the northeast corner of Novi Road and Ten Mile. Ms. Schmitt responded that City Council made no comments on that property. The Master Plan and Zoning Committee met and discussed the rezoning and gave a favorable recommendation for the new zoning.

Member Pehrson asked for the zoning on the adjacent communities’ properties. Ms. Schmitt said she had some of the information, but that it is the County’s job to determine that the adjacent community uses are compatible. Member Pehrson was specifically interested in the Wixom boundaries across from section 17 and 18. Chair Kocan agreed that it would be beneficial to know this information.

Member Sprague asked whether the Master Plan would have to return to the County if changes were made. Ms. Schmitt said that it wouldn’t. She said that out of courtesy, an adjacent community should be notified if changes were made.

Chair Kocan said that the new Master Plan does not provide a definition of the "Downtown West" designation. She asked that more information be brought forward on this designation. She said that the narrative states that the area is planned for further study, but this is not noted on the map. She would like to see a layout of the various existing business along the Grand River corridor. She would like suggestions on what the "Downtown West" designation should provide for.

Chair Kocan confirmed with Ms. Schmitt that Profile Steel would cease if the Wizinsky project moves forward.

Chair Kocan asked whether the various descriptors for commercial were steadfast or if they were flexible terms that allow for the various business zonings. Ms. Schmitt said that it provides some flexibility. Chair Kocan suggested that perhaps the Master Plan should not indicate different levels of commercial, rather just one commercial designation.

Member Cassis asked whether the Novi Road Expo Center was the proposed location for "Downtown West." He asked whether it wouldn’t be more logical to extend the Town Center zoning across Novi Road. Ms. Schmitt said that Downtown West was expected to be a cultural/entertainment venue that would enhance the surrounding land uses. It is not a continuation of existing land uses. Member Cassis said that westerly Grand River is designed with many small parcels. There is a creek to consider. There is a factory in the area. There is the proposed ring road that would pass the old Expo Center. There are many hurdles to overcome for that area. Ms. Schmitt said that it is a "Future Land Use Map."

Member Cassis said that the Town Center Ordinance takes into consideration the sizes of property in that area, and it was written to accommodate those properties.

Chair Kocan thought the Grand River Corridor Plan accurately depicted the area’s parcels and sensitivities.

Chair Kocan asked when the Planning Commission would like to discuss the Master Plan for adoption.

Member Cassis asked whether the Planning Commission needs to speak with City Council. Ms. McBeth said that the Staff could follow up with the various City Council Members to ascertain their thoughts.

The Planning Commission took an informal vote to hold a special meeting for the Master Plan review and adoption on December 1, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. The adoption will require a majority vote (City Attorney David Gillam later said a vote of six). There will be a Public Notice because it will be a special meeting.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Terra Libra, LLC for Preliminary Site Plan, Woodland Permit, Wetland Permit and Storm Water Management Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 30 on the north side of Nine Mile, east of Napier Road in the R-A (Residential Acreage) District. The Applicant is proposing to construct a 70-unit site condominium with RUD option. The subject property is approximately 111.28 acres.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth located the property on an aerial photo. The property is located on the north side of Nine Mile, east of Napier Road. There are some existing homes in the area, but the subject property is not developed. To the west are single family homes and vacant land fronting on Napier Road. To the south are single family homes fronting on Nine Mile and in the Park Place development. To the east the land is vacant and a large portion is owned by the City. To the north is the anticipated Quail Hollow subdivision.

The properties are all zoned residential. In Lyon Township the land is zoned R1.0 (Residential Agricultural). To the north the land is zoned R-1. The other properties in the area are zoned R-A. The Master Plan recommends single family residential for the area.

There are wetlands in several areas of the site, with a large system extending off-site along the east side of the property. There are light and medium density woodlands throughout the site.

The Applicant has appeared before the Planning Commission before with an RUD Plan for the property. On January 28, 2004 the Planning Commission recommended approval of the submitted RUD Plan to City Council. On March 1, 2004 City Council approved the RUD Plan, subject to a number of conditions. On June 7, 2004 City Council approved an RUD Agreement for the property. Also, in April of this year, the Zoning Board of Appeals approved variances related to two lot configurations, lots 14 and 15.

The lots range in size from approximately 15,500 square feet to 47,500 square feet, as allowed under the Residential Unit Development Option. Significant areas of open space are proposed to be preserved, as had been shown on the approved RUD Plan. Open space includes parks, wetlands and woodlands. "Amanda Park" on the east side of the property consists of 47 acres, and proposes the preservation of almost 36 acres of regulated wetlands, as well as upland woodlands, all of which are part of the designated Core Reserve area, and is adjacent to the City-owned property to the east. The Applicant proposes to dedicate this park to the City of Novi for additional contiguous open space adjacent to the existing parkland. Also proposed is a connection to "Singh Trail," which will provide a pedestrian connection through the City parkland between Nine and Ten Mile.

The following concerns were raised in the Professional Staff and Consultant’s review letters:

The Planning Review indicated that the plan conforms to Ordinance requirements, but that a Planning Commission finding is necessary to indicate that the Preliminary Site Plan conforms substantially to the RUD Plan and Agreement. The area of concern raised in the review letter relates to lot area and width. There were very specific statements in Section Roman Numeral 5 of the RUD Agreement relating to the total number of lots meeting certain lot widths of different zoning districts. The lots in question are lots 63 to 66 along the east side of the proposed street system near the middle of the property.

These four lots have been reduced enough in width to be shifted from the minimum R-1 standards to the R-2 standards. For example, lot 63 was reduced in size the most of the four, by 36 feet in width to 106.63 feet (to R-3 standards). The area was reduced by approximately 4500 square feet to 17,824 square feet (consistent with R-2 standards). Lot 66 was reduced the least: 5 feet in width to 115 feet and approximately 900 square feet in area, bringing it from R-1 standards to R-2 standards.

It is the Planning Department’s opinion that these changes can be considered a minor modification of the RUD Plan, since the Preliminary Site Plan does not increase the total number of lots from the approved RUD Plan, all of the lots on the PSP are located in similar locations as the RUD Plan, the reduction in width and area of the four lots appears to be done to allow enlargement of Tracy Park East to include a detention basin south of the wetland in the park, there has been no reduction in lot size below what is permitted in the RUD ordinances, and all lots meet or exceed the R-3 lot standards as required by ordinance. The open space on the property has been increased by the reduction in lot width and area of these four lots. Section 5 of the RUD Agreement appears to allow some flexibility in the final layout and area of the lots. The changes appear to meet the requirements of ordinance Section 2404.17 to allow for a minor modification from the RUD Plan to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission.

Alternatively, if the Planning Commission finds that the changes are a major modification of the RUD Agreement, approval by City Council would be necessary.

The Woodland and Wetland Reviews found only comments that need to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan review. Representatives of both consultants’ offices are present this evening if there are any questions about these reviews.

The Landscaping Review found that there is a need for a Planning Commission Waiver for use of a wall in lieu of the required four foot tall berm along Nine Mile. Also, there is a need for a Planning Commission Waiver of twenty ornamental trees, or these trees will need to be added to the final site plan. Also, there is a need for a Planning Commission Waiver for twelve street trees along Nine Mile, as the area is currently planted naturally.

The Traffic Review and Engineering Review found only comments that would need to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan Review. The Fire Department Review found a number of items to be addressed with the next submittal of plans.

We have also copied and provided in the packets a letter received from Mr. And Mrs. Ahmed, residential neighbors of this property with a house on Nine Mile, south and east of the proposed pedestrian pathway, "Singh Trail" as the trail turns and approaches Nine Mile. The primary concerns raised in this letter are for the privacy of the residents, safety and security. Dr. Tilton has worked extensively with the Applicant and Singh Development in finding the best location for Singh Trail throughout the properties and in this area in particular. The City has worked cooperatively with the Applicant by filing the necessary wetland application with the DEQ for the boardwalk portions of this trail.

The proposed trail in this area has been located as far as feasible from the property in question, but is restricted due to the location of the wetlands and woodlands in this area. The Applicant has been asked to work cooperatively with this property owner and is proposing landscaping in this area. Sheet L-2 shows proposed supplemental landscaping along the trail in this location (Detail 2E). In speaking with the neighbor last Thursday, he indicated he would not be able to attend the meeting this evening, and may not be able to send a representative, but asked that I express his concerns to the Commission, and his preference, that in addition to the landscaping that is proposed, a privacy fence be constructed along the common property line on the west side of the property to alleviate some of his concerns. We have not heard form the property owner on the other side of the proposed trail, but we might recommend a similar treatment for this area as well. If the Planning Commission is inclined to recommend fencing in this area, it might be best to ask the Applicant to meet with these property owners prior to Final Site Plan approval. They can determine the type of fencing preferred by the residents.

Bob Halso represented Terra Libra. Clif Seiber, Civil Engineer, was also present. He offered to answer any questions the Applicant might have.

Member Sprague read the Public Hearing correspondence:

Chair Kocan opened the floor for comment:

Chair Kocan closed the Public Hearing.

Member Pehrson asked about the ornamental tree waiver. Mr. Halso said he would satisfy that requirement; the omission of those trees was an oversight.

Member Pehrson asked about the request for a wall in lieu of a berm. Landscape Architect Lance Shipman replied that the wall is located near the front entrance, not the entire frontage. Much of the frontage is bordered by a wetland and an existing tree line which is being preserved. In those areas, the Applicant is requesting a waiver. The Zoning Ordinance allows the Planning Commission, at their discretion, to waive the four-foot berm with a four-foot crest for a four-foot wall. The Applicant is proposing a three-foot wall. There appears to be a three-foot grade change between the sidewalk and the base of the wall. Therefore, the wall will appear to be higher.

Member Pehrson asked about the trail. He said that if the trail were raised it could be built with side rails, which may deter the trail user from leaving the trail, and might provide more security. Mr. Halso said the trail is not raised. He said it is about seventy feet long and the area is heavily-treed and has a lot of brush. He said that one of the neighbors has mowed into the subject property, which makes the area seem more open. There is thirty feet between the trail and the property line. Member Pehrson said that it is unlikely that one could create a 100% secure trail.

Member Pehrson noted that during construction there will be a temporary east-west stub that runs to Napier Road. He confirmed that this road will be built to City standards.

Member Pehrson did not have a problem with the adjusted lot sizes. The RUD itself provides a great amount of open green space,

Member Cassis complimented that Applicant on this project. Preservation of the woodlands, wetlands, and handling the layout in such a sensitive manner is appreciated.

Member Cassis had no objections with the wall. He assumed that the finished product would be complemented with landscaping. Mr. Halso said that the proposed design emulates a project he saw in Lake Forest some years ago. The intent of the wall is to allow the passers-by to enjoy the natural features that lie behind the wall. The entry way into the subdivision was shifted in order to preserve the natural features. He would put the four-foot berm in, but the wall would provide a better look. The three-foot wall would be part of the entry treatment, then would die off where the wetlands take over. The wall would be about 100 feet, and there would be 400-500 feet of natural features. Mr. Shipman said landscaping has been proposed for the area between the wetlands and Lot 70.

Member Cassis noted that many subdivisions use walls to create their entryway.

Member Cassis asked about the paving of Nine Mile. Mr. Halso said that he is paving from the entry to Napier Road.

Member Cassis did not endorse the concept of placing a railing along the trail. He thought it could prevent people from escaping an assault, if they were not able to jump the fence. Mr. Halso was told by the neighbors that there are truckers and four-wheelers rambling around in this area. His experience is that this trail will improve the security in the area. Mr. Halso said that the adjacent homeowners should be allowed to do whatever they find necessary on their own property. He did not want to take on the responsibility of determining the security needs of these neighbors.

Member Cassis supported the project.

Member Sprague liked the plan. He liked that Nine Mile would be paved and that the Applicant was deeding parkland to the City.

Member Sprague asked Mr. Shipman if there was adequate screening between this property and the neighbor adjacent to the entry. Mr. Shipman responded that a seven-foot tall hedgerow, arborvitaes and trees will create a dense screening. In the winter, at minimum, there will be a seven-foot tall screening. Mr. Shipman said that there are two property owners at the west boundary, and that he has also spoken with the other parcel owner. Member Sprague asked if the screening was adequate as a sound barrier. Mr. Shipman said it would reduce the sound but not eliminate it. Mr. Shipman said that the wall is being proposed more as a landscape element than as a screening element. He also said there is at least 60-70 feet between the wall and the first lot (lot 70). He thought the wall would be an attractive addition to the Nine Mile frontage.

Member Sprague did not have a problem with the smaller lots. He was glad that the ornamental tree situation was going to be taken care of.

Member Sprague asked about the trail, and said he thought it could be a safety issue. He asked if the trail could be placed elsewhere, and whether it made sense to bring it down to Nine Mile. He wondered whether it should hook up into the street system. Wetland Consultant Dr. Don Tilton responded that the MDEQ would only allow the boardwalked area through the wetland if in fact there was no other feasible upland design. He said that with the proposed design, the trail runs along the bank of the Lyon Drain, so it is on upland area. Dr. Tilton said they could look at the area again. He said that the trail could perhaps cross a northerly wetland. It would be a long crossing. Dr. Tilton said that for the purpose of this meeting, the proposed outlet location on Nine Mile is the only location. Dr. Tilton said that the trail will be made of eight-foot wide asphalt. Parks and Recreation will maintain the trail.

Member Sprague asked where the trucks are going. Dr. Tilton said that he believes they are running through the actual Preserve property. The opportunity to joy ride will dissipate once the Preserve is under way.

Member Sprague confirmed that the area under Planning Commission review is the "green shaded" property. Ms. McBeth said that the rest of the trail will come before the Planning Commission with the Quail Hollow (now Legacy Parc) plan. The green section on the map is Legacy Parc; the white section is the City of Novi.

Member Sprague asked whether a change to the trail to bring it out elsewhere into The Preserve could be reviewed administratively. Ms. McBeth said that the change would have to go through the MDEQ and would have to be reviewed with Singh Development. The RUD Agreements for both developments would have to be reviewed. If the Planning Commission would like this to be researched, they could make it part of their motion, such as a request for the Staff and Consultants to consider possible relocation of that portion of the trail. Ms. McBeth said that if a change to the plan is not possible, the trail will be left on the upland and will skirt around the east and south sides of this property.

Member Sprague asked who has reviewed the trail from a safety perspective. Ms. McBeth said that the City relies on Dr. Tilton’s advice. There have been a number of meetings with the City and Dr. Tilton. The Parks and Recreation Director has reviewed the plan. Everyone one is keeping a close eye on the elements associated with this plan. Ms. McBeth said she could share the plan with the Police Chief, as she is not sure whether he has been included in the previous discussions.

Member Sprague liked the plan before him, except he is concerned about the trail. He was not getting a sense for the safeness – or lack thereof – of the plan. He would like to feel comfortable with this issue before the plan goes forward. From his perspective, he is concerned about the properties of the neighbors who have come forward this evening.

Ms. McBeth responded that the Police Department might utilize their bike patrol on this trail. She agreed to run this plan by the Police Department. The Fire Department has been involved in the review, as they have considered whether the trail was accessible enough for potential rescue situations.

Member Sprague asked whether it would be feasible for the neighbor who wrote a letter to hook up to these utilities. Civil Engineer Ben Croy replied that this possibility has not been reviewed, as the properties have Nine Mile frontage, which is where these sites would typically hook into a system. He said that he could review the possibility of hooking into this site, although it is not the standard method of doing so.

Member Sprague would like the Police and Fire departments to review the issue of the fence. He would not want the two fences to create a safety hazard.

Member Wrobel asked whether Laurel Hill will connect through to Legacy Parc. Mr. Croy replied that the intent is for connection with full access between the two sites.

Member Avdoulos agreed with the use of the screen wall. It will enhance the viewshed. It allows the development to tie in with the natural setting.

Member Avdoulos was glad that the Applicant said he would continue to work with the City.

Member Avdoulos said that the neighbors who are concerned about the drive being close to their property might want to have a private meeting with the City to have the plan explained to them. Member Avdoulos said that this subdivision is designed with open space pods and reflects the level of cooperation between the City and the Applicant.

Member Avdoulos asked if Dr. Tilton could verify again that the west side of the wetland boundary is downland and would not be appropriate to house the path. It was Member Avdoulos’ opinion that the eastern edge placement was chosen because it was more appropriate. Dr. Tilton confirmed that the eastern edge is more upland; he said they will take another look at the entire area.

Member Avdoulos said that lot size reduction is a minor modification to the RUD Agreement. As indicated by the Planning Department, this change increases the open space areas. The square footage is still within reason. The lots and their locations are substantially in the same place.

Member Avdoulos noted that Vilican Leman’s letter states that the plan is sensitive to the natural features of the site, and even maintains the wildlife trails. He felt that this plan properly made use of the Ordinance options to maintain open space in exchange for other concessions like lot size.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Chair Kocan was pleased with the various sizes of homes. She asked that the City Attorney weigh in on this plan being "substantially" the same as the RUD Agreement. City Attorney David Gillam said that the Ordinance does not provide a definition for this term; however, in general terms, a "substantial" change must be something that changes or defeats the underlying purpose of the Agreement. Things like an increase in lots, lot coverage, rearrangement of lots, reduction of open space, etc, are considered substantial changes. The City Attorney’s office is comfortable with the proposed changes being considered minor, and he believes the position is defensible. He also believes the Planning Review proves this position as well.

Chair Kocan wanted to hear the City Attorney make that statement, because she said that there were City Council members who were unhappy with the number of R-2 and R-3 lots prior to this change.

Chair Kocan asked about the note on the plan which states the Wetland H is flooded. She said that lots 36 through 40 abut this flooded wetland. Dr. Tilton did not see these homes as a negative impact to this wetland. The plan provides for drainage of that area into the stormwater system. Additionally, they are not adding any stormwater to the wetland. The natural watershed and hydrologic balance is being preserved.

Chair Kocan asked about the mitigation issue. Dr. Tilton said that no decision has been made at this time, but the threshold has not yet been met for wetland impact. Dr. Tilton stated that the MDEQ makes that determination, and the Applicant has already received his permit.

Chair Kocan asked about the request for homeowners to be informed about not using chemicals on their yards due to the number of wetlands in the area. Dr. Tilton said this is recommended, although this is not standard language in the City of Novi. He seemed to recall discussing this with the Applicant, that this, too, was his desire. He had said he would like to preserve the buffers and the natural settings.

Mr. Halso said that he is attempting to preserve the natural features. He would like to recommend to these homeowners that they be environmentally sensitive, but he did not want to make the issue something that would send a person to jail for violating the request. Chair Kocan appreciated Mr. Halso’s consideration of informing the residents of this issue.

Chair Kocan and City Council are concerned about building roads across wetlands. She asked whether there should be a stipulation regarding these roads, when City Council accepts them, that if the roads deteriorate in "x amount" of years, the City would not be liable for their repair. Dr. Tilton responded that these wetland crossings are not around significant peat deposits. They don’t have to float a roadway on fabric. They don’t have to worry about unstable soils. These wetlands are basically stream crossing and water courses that are on heavy clay, which is good load-bearing material. They might be wet, but they are not peat. They are not unstable. In terms of overcoming significant engineering obstacles, this type of wetland doesn’t represent this concern. The larger wetland complex that has been set aside does have a deep peat deposit, but not this wetland complex.

Chair Kocan asked about the Vilican Leman comment regarding the need for retaining walls in certain areas because of the slope, trees, etc. Dr. Tilton said this would not have an impact on the wetlands. The areas where a retaining wall might reduce impacts are in the buffers. All the buffer areas are such that there are substantial wooded areas. His company’s position is that a retaining wall isn’t warranted, given the proposed minimal impact to the buffers.

Chair Kocan asked Mr. Halso if he had given any thought to a boulder wall. Mr. Halso said that these details will be worked out at Final Site Plan submittal. He said that the context under which the walls were discussed was the tree protection fence, and if it were pushed in a certain direction a retaining wall may be necessary. That is not his intent. Mr. Halso and Mr. Seiber said they do not anticipate the need for retaining walls. They accomplished the slopes discussed in the reviews by dropping brick ledges on the sides of the homes and shifting the locations of some of the homes.

Chair Kocan asked about the future 86-foot Right of Way on Nine Mile. Ms. McBeth said that half of this Right of Way can be accomplished with this plan. Mr. Halso concurred, stating that he believed the plan took this into consideration.

Chair Kocan asked if the City can ask the MDEQ about taking the trail from east to west, which seems like it would save a considerable amount of construction of the trail, and it would get it further away from the residential properties. She said that there has been discussion about the fence issue. She agreed the plan should/could go to the Police and Fire departments for review. She thought that in some cases the trail is fifteen feet away from a neighbor’s property. A fence, or section of fence, should at least be considered, for the areas (corners of the lots) where the trail comes closer to the house. Mr. Halso said he was not amenable to putting in up to two sections of fences for these neighbors. He said that the heavy trees and brush start well within those lots’ rears. The trees run into their yards and out into the park area. These proposed fences would run inside the middle of a wooded, densely brushed area. He did not think this was a good idea and did not want to participate in that. He has proposed landscaping buffer for the one 70-foot section, along the City property. He felt that the neighbors should consider themselves free to do what they wish on their own properties. Ms. McBeth said that she spoke with Mr. Ahmed and he preferred keeping the trees versus having a fence along the north; he was primarily concerned with his west property line.

Mr. Shipman said that a natural approach to landscaping the trail will be used. Evergreens will be planted near the house.

Mr. Halso told Chair Kocan that he is requesting an Ash Waiver. Ms. McBeth said that this request would be part of the Woodland Permit. Chair Kocan clarified that this means the diseased ash trees can be removed without replacement.

Chair Kocan appreciated that the woodland links have remained and will maintain the wildlife corridor. She said there is a Conservation Easement for the woodlands and wetlands. The preservation for the wetland permit and preservation of the essential wet woodlands is provided with minimal impacts.

Chair Kocan asked Mr. Croy about the Stormwater Management Plan. Mr. Croy said there is further evaluation to be made by the Engineering Department and the Wetland Consultant regarding the post development runoff. They want to ensure that there won’t be any adverse downstream problems.

Chair Kocan said it was a very nice plan. She would be supporting the motion.

Member Cassis asked Member Avdoulos what he meant about the update back to the Planning Commission. Member Avdoulos responded that he would like the Planning Department to report back to the Planning Commission regarding the comments made by the Police and Fire departments. He was not requesting that the Applicant return to the Planning Commission.

Member Sprague said he would like to see a specific recommendation from the Police and Fire departments regarding the fencing. Chair Kocan asked the City Attorney to comment. Mr. Gillam said that at this point, he did not think it was something the City could ask the Applicant to provide. It was not part of the RUD Agreement, it is not something that is otherwise specifically required in the Ordinances.

Member Sprague confirmed with Mr. Shipman that the twenty ornamental trees do not have to be specifically listed in the motion.

Member Pehrson asked whether something should be stated that required the appropriate amount of screening along the entry drive. Mr. Shipman said that the landscape proposed is sufficient. With the space left, the only thing else that could be considered is a wall, and that really isn’t a well-liked idea.

Member Pehrson asked whether there was something that could be stated that will keep the Applicant responsible for the "wetland" roads, for this plan and/or for future site plans that come into the City. Mr. Gillam responded that something of this nature could have been negotiated as part of the RUD; however, there is nothing in the Ordinance that would require this. Absent a willingness from the Applicant, it cannot be required.

Mr. Gillam asked that the record be clear and the motion reflect, that the Applicant has agreed to dedicate 43 feet for future Nine Mile Right of Way purposes and the City, through the Planning Commission, accepts that offer. Both Member Avdoulos and Member Pehrson agreed to this language being added to the motion.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Sprague:

Chair Kocan asked that the motion also state that the project layout links all on-site and off-site woodland areas, allowing travel lanes for wildlife. Both Member Avdoulos and Member Sprague agreed.

Motion carried 7-0. Member Lipski had stepped out.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Sprague:

Mr. Gillam said this would be the appropriate place for the Planning Commission to place a condition on the Applicant, requiring him to include in The Preserve’s By-laws, language requesting the homeowners not to use phosphorous fertilizers within 25 feet of the wetlands. Dr. Tilton assisted with this language, and he noted that there is now phosphorous-free fertilizer available.

Member Wrobel asked if this language be added directly to the by-laws of the Homeowners’ Association. Mr. Gillam responded that it would be added to the Master Deed, wherein the covenants and restrictions are referenced. He said that the question remains whether the Applicant prefers to make this permissive or mandatory. Mr. Halso said that his understanding was that he would only be making this a recommendation to his homeowners.

In the matter of the request of Robert J. Halso of Terra Libra, LLC for the Preserve, SP03-46b, motion to approve the Wetland Permit for the reason that it meets the City of Novi’s Wetland and Watercourse Protection Ordinance as stated in the Zoning Ordinance. The Applicant is required to include in The Preserve’s By-laws, language requesting the homeowners not to use phosphorous fertilizers within 25 feet of the wetlands.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Chair Kocan called for a ten minute break.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of J.B. Donaldson Company for Preliminary Site Plan, Wetland Permit, Woodland Permit and Stormwater Management Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 12 on the west side of Haggerty Road, north of Twelve Mile in the OST, Planned Office Service Technology District. The project proposes a 42,064 square foot two-story building for medical use on a five acre site.

Planner Darcy Schmitt located the property on an aerial photo. The property is master planned for office use and zoned OST, as are the properties to the north, south and west. Farmington Hills is located to the east. Novaplex is located to the north, a single family residence is located to the south, and Haggerty Corridor Park is located to the west.

Ms. Schmitt said that a single family home will be removed from this site. The narrow, five acre site is only 158 feet wide. It is characterized as gently rolling with high quality woodlands extending to the surrounding properties. During the review process the Applicant was asked about the feasibility of acquiring the property to the south to eliminate the difficulties of developing a narrow property. The Applicant indicated that they had attempted to do so, but were unsuccessful.

The property has wetlands on the far west corner. The property is heavily wooded.

The Applicant has worked diligently with the Woodland Consultant and Wetland Consultant to minimize the impacts on the natural features.

The Planning Review indicates that the plan does not meet Ordinance requirements. A Planning Commission finding is necessary for the modification of the south side yard parking setback; twenty feet required and 17.4 feet proposed. A Planning Commission Waiver is required for the loading area. This location is the rear southwest corner, abutting another OST property to the south. The Applicant is proposing an entire row of evergreens adjacent to the loading area. A ZBA variance of 34.8 feet for the building setback for the south side of the property is required. There are 15.2 feet proposed, fifty feet required. The Planning Department recommends the Planning Commission grant these waivers and recommend approval for the ZBA variance, because the Applicant has worked diligently with the Woodland Consultant to alleviate the problems associated with locating the parking in the woodlands.

The Wetland Review indicates the plan meets the Ordinance requirements, with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. The Woodland Review indicates the plan meets the Ordinance requirements, with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. The Traffic Review indicates the plan meets requirements. The Engineering Review indicates the plan meets the Ordinance requirements, with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. The Façade Review indicates the plan meets the Ordinance requirements, with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. The Fire Department Review indicates the plan meets the Ordinance requirements, with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

Ms. Schmitt passed around the façade board.

Matthew Quinn represented the Applicant and some 35 doctors who will own this medical facility. Mr. Quinn said that Novaplex, the neighboring property, is approved for a total of four buildings. Mr. Quinn said that Traffic is recommending an island to balance off the island across the street in Farmington Hills. Mr. Quinn said the Applicant is working with the neighbor on a cross-access easement. The building waivers are necessary. The Applicant could have made the building longer and narrower, but the parking would have encroached the woodlands and everyone thought that it was more sensitive to the environment to stay as much as possible out of the tree area.

Mr. Quinn said that an additional 100 feet of woodlands is being saved by using this site design. The screening requirement by the loading area is, in the opinion of the Applicant, resolved by the row of evergreens. Mr. Quinn said that the Planning Commission has the authority to grant this waiver.

Mr. Quinn said that this is a very nice building. These doctors are associated with Providence Hospital. Overall, this will be a nice coordinated effort between this property and the Providence on Grand River.

Mr. Quinn said that the Applicant suffered a hardship imposed by the City when they rezoned this property to OST. Therefore, he was confident that the request for a variance will be granted.

Bennett Donaldson, the Applicant addressed the Planning Commission. He said the building is placed as such so that the driveway can line up with the drive across the street, and allows for a shared access with Novaplex.

Rob Casalou, President of Providence, addressed the Planning Commission. He said that he was aware of great interest in medical office space in Novi, likely coming in on the heels of their announcement that they are adding a hospital to their Grand River campus.

Mr. Casalou said that these Infinity Medical doctors represent a core of their primary care physicians that have helped build Providence Park over the years. Their success is very important to him. The timing of the plan is vital. Their success must be in place prior to the hospital opening. Mr. Casalou was at the meeting to show his support for these doctors. He reiterated the importance of these doctors’ success relative to the expansion of Providence Park.

Dr. Mark Behlen, 47825 West Ten Mile: He has practiced medicine in Novi for some time. He is affiliated with Providence, and was the Medical Director of the physician organization for five years prior to his starting up Infinity Primary Care in July. Dr. Behlen said that Infinity will have electronic records for their patients. Their patients will be able to access their records via a web site.

Member Sprague read the correspondence into the record.

Chair Kocan closed the Public Hearing.

Member Lipski asked for some specific information on the doctors who will make up Infinity. David Steinberger replied. He introduced Steven Heiman, physiatrist (a physician specializing in physical medicine), Joe Gionola, Family Practice, Michael Balon, Kevin Dayton. There are 35 doctors in the group. Ten are physiatrists. The building will house a testing facility for cardiac, ultrasound and labs. One Infinity office currently in place will be moving to this building, bringing three more family practice doctors. There will likely be four DOs and the rest are MDs. There will be 13 internists and the rest are family practice.

Member Cassis said there are a 2.5 foot variance and screening variance that are necessary. He said that the plan calls for heavy vegetation in the loading area. He said that what can be accomplished with nature is just as good for screening. He had no objections. He had no objections regarding the 2.5 foot variance either. This Applicant is saving 422 linear feet by 158 feet of woodlands. Member Cassis said this was a fair trade. He said that the addition of these doctors to the community is a blessing. He was in favor of the plan.

Member Sprague confirmed that the project is not short of parking spaces with Ms. Schmitt. Member Sprague confirmed with Landscape Architect Lance Shipman that the City anticipates that the proposed screening will be sufficient – especially because the adjoining parcel is OST and not residential.

Member Sprague asked about the neighboring home. Mr. Quinn responded that the adjoining house sits up on its property, while Infinity will be set back from the road.

Art Cervi, the adjacent homeowner at 28331 Haggerty Road, said that he had no objection with the Infinity plan. He said his property is also zoned OST.

Member Sprague confirmed with Infinity that the owner of the building will be a super LLC that will be called the Haggerty Medical Group. This is a for-profit company and the property will remain on the tax rolls.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Chair Kocan appreciated Mr. Cervi coming forward and putting his comments on the record.

Chair Kocan asked whether a preservation easement would be placed on the wooded area. The Applicant responded that they are considering the easement issue, which was in the consultant’s letter. This issue will be taken back to the group for a consensus. In general they are open to the idea.

Chair Kocan asked about the lighting that will placed on the site. She asked if the Applicant had a problem with staying at a maximum of 25 feet; the Applicant responded that he did not have a problem with that, as it is their standard lighting height.

Chair Kocan asked if an MDEQ permit was required. The Applicant responded that a permit is required for less than a quarter-acre for filling purposes.

Chair Kocan said that the consultant requested hand digging of the swale. The Applicant has stated that they do not propose to hand dig the swale. Woodland Consultant Doris Hill responded that this has been a discussion point. It is quite a distance that is being proposed for hand digging. She would like some kind of commitment from the Applicant that he work strongly together with the City to minimize the impact to the woods that abut this swale. She said that a tree protection fence has been discussed around the swale. She said the Applicant has been very cooperative and she saw no reason why the details of this fence couldn’t be worked out by the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

Chair Kocan asked Mr. Shipman whether a landscape waiver was necessary for the parking lot trees. She thought that only woodland replacements could be put in the tree fund. Mr. Shipman responded that because they are likely going to get a parking lot waiver, the trees associated with this waiver must be considered (one tree per 35 linear feet), as the four feet proposed will not accommodate those trees. The Applicant has offered to place money into the tree fund for those trees. Chair Kocan and Mr. Shipman said that was a generous offer.

Chair Kocan said that there was a request for an additional traffic study. She asked whether the outcome of this study might change something, or was it to determine the placement of a traffic signal. The Traffic Consultant told Civil Engineer Ben Croy that the full traffic study would just give him a fuller picture of the site. The study wouldn’t provide information for a signal, which is not being considered at this time.

Chair Kocan asked about the lane configuration. Mr. Croy said that the proper design will be determined and worked out by the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

Member Pehrson asked whether, "The Applicant minimizing the impact of the woodlands when constructing the swale," should be made part of the motion. Chair Kocan said this should be made part of the woodland permit motion. Member Pehrson and Member Wrobel accepted the additions to the motion.

Mr. Shipman asked that the motion be more specific about the trees. He suggested adding the language, "The perimeter trees on the northern boundary of the parking lot." Member Pehrson and Member Wrobel agreed.

Member Avdoulos asked whether a secondary access is required. He would like to see a shared access with the property to the south in the future. Mr. Croy said that to the north there will be an access between the properties. On the plans, the Applicant has noted on the plan a location that has been dedicated for a future connection to the southerly property. It is just west of the building location.

Member Avdoulos said that the building cannot be moved to the other property line because of the way the entrance is set up. He was concerned that the property to the south will propose development where the building is a mirror image of this plan and the buildings abut each other. Member Avdoulos noted the future stub on the plan. He though the proposal was simple and elegant. It will enhance the property. He would like to see the aesthetics replicated along this stretch of Haggerty Road.

Chair Kocan confirmed that the ZBA variance is for 34.8 feet.

In the matter of the request of JB Donaldson Co. for Infinity Medical, SP04-34a, motion to grant approval of the Preliminary Site Plan subject to: 1) A Planning Commission finding for modification of the side yard parking setback requirements from twenty feet to 17.4 feet on the south side yard, and five feet on the north side yard, based on the proposed setbacks not reducing the total area of setbacks on the site below the minimum setback requirements (2,000 square feet of deficient parking setback and a surplus of 48,000 square feet of parking setback at the rear of the site); 2) A Planning Commission Waiver for the screening of the loading area based on the loading area location near the rear southwest corner of the building abutting OST zoned property to the south (evergreens are proposed along the entire property line adjacent to the loading area); 3) A ZBA variance of 34.8 feet for the building setback on the south side of the property (15.2 feet proposed, fifty feet required);

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Prior to the vote Chair Kocan confirmed that the Applicant understands and agrees that if the northerly property does not develop first then an alternative routing design for this plan must be approved by the City Engineer. Mr. Quinn was the respondent.

Member Gaul left at the 10:00 break, and Member Sprague was planning to leave at 11:00 p.m.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Singh Development Company for Preliminary Site Plan, Woodland Permit and Storm Water Management Plan approval. The subject property is located at the intersection of Novi and Old Novi roads, north of 12½ Mile and is zoned R-4, Single Family Residential. The Applicant is proposing to develop the 19.783 acre parcel with 46 single family, detached residential site condominiums.

Planner Tim Schmitt located the property on an aerial photo. He said that this plan comes to Planning Commission after first being presented as Rezoning 18.630 earlier this year. It went before City Council and was approved in April 2004. The property was rezoned from R-A to R-4, single family residential, which was in compliance with the Master Plan for Land Use.

Mr. Schmitt said that the property is bordered on the east by Old Novi and Novi, and on the south by 12½ Mile. To the south is Charneth Fen and Carlton Forest. To the north are the subdivisions surrounding Shawood Lake.

The property is zoned R-4, single family residential. To the north is R-A residential; further north is additional R-4 property. The entire area is master planned for R-4, single family residential. To the south is RM-1, low density low rise multiple family residential, with the PD-1 option. To the west is R-A. The east is zoned R-A and R-4, but is developed as a PUD.

The property has no regulated wetlands. There is a small wetland that was located through a field survey. The entire property is covered by light, medium and dense woodlands.

Mr. Schmitt said that the Planning Commission may wish to discuss items found in the reviews. The Planning Review offered no major comments. There are minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. The plan substantially conforms to the R-4 zoning district.

The Wetland Review indicates that a letter of authorization will be required for the minor encroachment in the area of lots three and four. This buffer encroachment is a slight grading impact to the tip of lot three; the Applicant is preserving that area. The Applicant will need to submit some additional information to the wetland consultant.

The Landscaping Review noted that the Applicant is proposing leaving the southern boundary in its natural state, preserving the woodlands and the character of 12½ Mile. The waiver of the berm is therefore requested. Additionally, there is a small area along Novi Road that does not have a berm in front of it. The Applicant is prepared to discuss some alternatives. A waiver or wall would be required.

The Engineering Review and the Traffic Review both noted that the sidewalk meanders along 12½ Mile and so a Design and Construction Standards Waiver is required. Internally this has been discussed and it was determined that the Applicant should go through the motions of requesting the waiver. The sidewalk is entirely within the right of way; it is designed as a meandering trail so as to save some additional trees. Given the character of the road, Staff is supportive of this request.

The Fire Department Review made no comment.

The Woodland Review noted some fairly important items. Mr. Schmitt, Doris Hill of Vilican Leman and the Applicant met to discuss these issues. Their response letter is an accurate reflection of the items discussed. There was some discrepancy on how certain things were being classified. There are a substantial amount of ash trees on this site. The Applicant notes this, as indicated in red in their plans. This property does not have the greatest quality of woodlands.

Mike Kahm of Singh Development represented the Applicant. He said that Mr. Schmitt was accurate in describing the various Bolingbroke issues. He wanted to provide the Planning Commission with a better understanding of Singh’s commitments based on the meeting he attended regarding the woodlands. Mr. Kahm said that Mike Barger of Mike’s Tree Surgeons performed the Tree Survey and was available for comment at this meeting.

Mr. Kahm said this is a distressed forest with a substantial amount of ash trees. Mr. Kahm said they will provide additional woodland buffers, particularly along the northern property line. They proposed a twenty-foot preservation park along the northern boundary. They have agreed to add a fifteen-foot preservation easement along the rear of the lots that abut the neighbors to the north. There will be a total of 35 feet for the buffer, and along the north, and it actually extends to the west.

Mr. Kahm said the purple areas on the plans represent the additional buffer. He pointed to an island that is being preserved.

Mr. Kahm said that they are requesting the berm waiver because the road has been deemed a natural beauty road and has a beautiful woodland canopy. They would like to preserve that. Placing the berm means removing 22 additional regulated trees and understory.

Mr. Kahm said that they would consider berming the other area mentioned by Mr. Schmitt. He said that they did not propose this on their plan because of the grade of the property in comparison to the grade of the road. There is a four to five foot difference. From the road, it looks like a berm. They felt that the intent of the Ordinance was already met.

Mr. Kahm said they would correct any discrepancies in their tree survey, based on the comments made at the woodland meeting. Mr. Kahm said that the sidewalk waiver is meant to save the natural beauty.

Chair Kocan opened the floor for public comment:

Angie Bruder, 195 Pleasant Cove: Wanted to ensure that the natural beauty of the area is kept. She was happy with the 35-foot buffer.

Member Pehrson read the correspondence into the record:

Ronald Baer, 44000 W 12½ Mile: Requested that his property be zoned to R-4, have access to the sanitary sewer line and the Stormwater Management that will serve this parcel.

Sheila Kozak, 28381 Carlton Way: Objected because the country lane atmosphere of 12½ Mile will be lost.

Glenn and Carrie Schoening, 150 Pleasant Cove: Objected because the aesthetics of the area would change, and they said they didn’t get notified of the rezoning request, and were also told the R-4 request would not happen.

Tim Chu, 28385 Carlton Way: Objected for traffic reasons.

Qing He, 28385 Carlton Way: Objected because he preferred to preserve the woods.

Judith Chamberlain, 28384 Carlton Way: Objected because there is too much building in the area. There are traffic problems. They will destroy the wetlands and woods. They have no wetland/woodland protection plans.

John Chamberlain, 28384 Carlton Way: Objected for same four reasons.

Chair Kocan closed the Public Hearing.

Member Cassis asked for clarification of the berm issues. Mr. Kahm said the one is for the length of 12½ Mile. The other is located at the southeast corner where the detention basin is. The road is lower by four to five feet. Member Cassis concurred. He asked if there were any trees in the area. Mr. Kahm said there are some. George Norberg of Seiber Keast said that there are two, three or four trees that will be removed for the detention basin. The right of way grade is at 960 elevation. The road is near 953 elevation. Once the basin is put in, the top of the hill will be lowered slightly. There will still be about a four-foot difference. The viewshed from the subdivision will appear as a horizon.

Member Cassis asked what landscaping would be provided around the basin. Mr. Kahm said it would be extensive.

Member Cassis said that based on Mr. Schmitt’s comments, he felt assured that the Applicant is really working diligently with the City. He had no objection to the southerly berm waiver; he preferred natural beauty to manmade symmetrical berms. He had no objections to the north side waiver request. He felt the Applicant has provided a lot of "purple" buffer land, which is pleasing. Member Cassis had no problem with the meandering sidewalk design, especially if it helps preserve trees. At this time he approved of the plan.

Member Pehrson asked about the hydrological integrity of the wetlands. He wondered if the Applicant’s response letter adequately addressed the wetland consultant’s comments. Mr. Schmitt replied that the small wetland pocket behind lots three and four is minor. Impacting their buffer is not prohibited. He said that Dr. Tilton was just asking that the impact be minimal, eliminated if possible. The additional fifteen feet essentially eliminates the problem. There are some minor grading impacts to the edge, but the integrity of the buffer is being maintained. Mr. Schmitt said that the Applicant will not be building out an acre and a half that flows to this wetland. They are proposing enough impervious surface with this plan, that this land is expected to remain, and maintain the integrity of the wetland. Mr. Kahm said that the water flows to the south. Some of the lawns may drain in that direction, but the downspouts and sump pumps will not. It will have more of an agricultural runoff, to mimic more closely what is happening there now.

Member Pehrson felt the meandering sidewalk suits the area. He felt that it was the Planning Commission’s responsibility to be cognizant of when a standard, e.g., a berm requirement, may not be the best choice. Member Pehrson liked the natural setting of the plan.

Member Pehrson asked about a conservation easement. Mr. Kahm said that there are permanent park areas along the north and south. They are putting an additional fifteen feet behind the lots.

Member Pehrson asked about the decorative wall, and whether it suited the natural topography in the area. Landscape Architect Lance Shipman said that there is berming behind the wall. From Novi Road it will appear as the wall is laid into the berm as opposed to sitting on top of it. This is a four-foot wall. Mr. Schmitt said this four-foot wall seems to be a standard request from developers lately. It seems to be a height that is attractive but not obtrusive. Member Pehrson did not have a problem with the wall.

Member Lipski said that there is a long stream of odd buildings in this area – a garage, a run-down office building, a liquor store. He said this Applicant is proposing an upscale development that will evolve this area into a more attractive location.

Member Avdoulos asked Ms. Hill about the woodland meeting. She replied that the meeting did go well. Although the property doesn’t seem to have a high-quality woodland (emerald ash borer and Dutch elm disease), the Applicant and the City were able to come to terms with the terms of the Woodland Ordinance and how to apply it to this property. She was pleased with the additional fifteen feet. She was pleased they were willing to look at alternative grading. She said that this is a Type B Habitat, which means it has a medium level of diversity. Strangely enough, the less than perfect woodlands oftentimes provide the best habitat. Birds like to live in the shrubby areas. She said this woodland is very diverse. Ms. Hill said that prior to Final Site Plan submittal she would like to work with the Applicant on where tree replacements might go. She would like to enhance the north and east sides of the property.

Member Avdoulos said it is important to the Planning Commission that Applicants work diligently with the City on their plans. He was happy that a neighbor has voiced support for the plan.

Member Avdoulos thought the meandering sidewalk design was fine. He asked whether the Bolingbroke Drive would serve as the main entrance, and the 12½ Mile entrance would be secondary. The Applicant said the goal would be to keep the character the same on 12½ Mile, but still provide some modest identity for that entrance.

Member Avdoulos asked whether the four-foot wall was designed as such so as to carry the name of the subdivision. He did not mind the four-foot design. Mr. Kahm said that there is also a berm, so the wall becomes a retaining wall, as well as the entry and signage wall.

Member Avdoulos asked if the entry landscaping is part of the adjacent lots. Mr. Kahm responded, yes, to some extent. He said there are "greenbelt easements" on those lots, and the purchasers of those lots already have the landscaping within that easement, and it will be maintained by the association.

Chair Kocan said that this area is designated as a high wildlife area. She asked if the preservation proposed allows the wildlife to travel. Ms. Hill responded that it allows for minimal travel along one side. Wildlife tends to steer away from a development once construction begins. Her guess is that there isn’t much wildlife traveling toward the intersection. This development will unfortunately impact the wildlife. Ms. Hill said the large park to the north will maintain some travel lanes. There are some travel areas on the other side of the road. Development pushes the animals out.

Chair Kocan was disappointed in the amount of trees being removed. She understood that as long as the Applicant replaced them, nothing could be done.

Chair Kocan confirmed that Vilican Leman and the Applicant have come to an agreement on the exempt status of the trees. Ms. Hill said that there is evidence of Dutch elm disease, and she trusted Mike’s judgment on those trees. Vilican Leman is going to allow the exemption of those elm trees that fall into the poor and very poor category, as well as the ash trees. Ms. Hill said that they have requested the Applicant leave the fallen trees in the preservation areas, unless they are a hazard.

Chair Kocan said that the Applicant has indicated the preserve area will be added to lots 17, 18, 33 and 34. She thought it should probably have been 34 and 35. Mr. Schmitt replied that the preservation area will be in and around the area of lots 17, 18, 19, 33, 34 and 35. The exact location will be determined at the time of grading.

Chair Kocan asked if Ms. Hill was involved in the soil erosion planning. Ms. Hill said that when the silt fence is not maintained, siltation goes into the woods and that becomes a problem. Silt can kill a tree. This is a construction issue that she works on with Ayres Lewis on the monitoring of this item. Chair Kocan said the motion will likely request that the Applicant continue working with the woodland consultant with regard to the woodland permit.

Chair Kocan asked about lots 1 and 25, and whether the berms are on these lots. Mr. Shipman said that it is not an unusual practice on lots that abut the entrance. The Applicant will be required to label the non-access greenbelt labeled on the plans, which would indicate the area that needs to be preserved as a non-access greenbelt. Other subdivisions have also been designed in the manner. As long as the berm does not impinge on the building footprint, there is not an immediate concern with that design. Lot 1 is an example of how the side yard is enlarged in order to accommodate that berm. This is a common practice in tight subdivisions.

Chair Kocan asked if the landscaping would be placed prior to those lots going up for sale. Mr. Shipman said the landscaping would be in before the home is constructed. Mr. Kahm agreed that the berm would be in so that the future owners know.

Chair Kocan asked about the width of 12½ Mile, which is very narrow. Talk has been made of widening the road to twenty feet. She asked if this is something the Applicant could volunteer to do or that the City is required to do. Mr. Schmitt said that the City is not asking the Applicant to widen the road, but to grade the road to the proper profile. There is a portion of the road that is fine, but along the edges it has eroded over time and is not as stable as it should be. The intention is to have the Applicant grade the road to a twenty-foot wide standard section, at a minimum from their entry out to Novi Road. This is for safety purposes. It wouldn’t affect the right of way. It may impact the surrounding trees, which is a concern to be looked at when the Final Site Plan comes in.

Mr. Kahm said that this issue has not really been discussed at this time. He agreed that Singh could look at it, but he did not want to impact negatively the trees that they are trying to preserve. As long as the two don’t conflict (fixing the road and preserving the trees), he said Singh could try to work on the grading of the road. He further commented that he would like to know what will happen to 12½ west of this development – is the twenty-foot wide grading just going to stop?

Mr. Schmitt said that the issue is ancillary at this time. He agreed with Mr. Kahm, that if the natural beauty of the road is meant to be protected, this project might not be possible.

Chair Kocan said that traffic must be considered. She suspected that a lot of traffic will use 12½ Mile. She said it was a health, safety and welfare issue in her opinion. She was looking for widening of the road wherever possible and wherever appropriate.

Chair Kocan confirmed that the construction entrance will be off of 12½ Mile. She said that this issue must be looked at. She confirmed with Mr. Schmitt that a requirement of the City is that the road must be returned to original state after construction.

Chair Kocan did not have a problem with the detention basin corner not having the berm. She said it was in the purview of the Planning Commission to make this decision based on elevation changes.

Chair Kocan asked if the plan is short four ornamental trees. Mr. Shipman said the Applicant was not seeking a waiver, so he assumed they are trying to work those trees into the next generation of plans.

Chair Kocan commented that this development will be single family residential, not attached condos. She continued that the Public Hearing was held at the Planning Commission level for the rezoning, and the plan then went on to City Council.

Chair Kocan said that there is never a promise to neighbors that they will be able to hook into new sewer lines. She wished to have that comment on the record.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Cassis:

Chair Kocan asked if the Planning Commission Waiver for the berm is necessary for the southeast corner of 12½ Mile at the detention basin because of the elevation of the property. Mr. Shipman responded that it is not a waiver, but a reduction of the requirement. Member Pehrson and Member Cassis agreed to the change.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Avdoulos:

Chair Kocan asked that, "Addition of the preservation area is to include lot 35," be added to the motion. She asked that, "The Applicant work with the Woodland Consultant on the placement of the tree protection fencing and additional woodland replacements," be added to the motion. She asked that, "The Applicant providing the additional preservation as depicted in purple on the plan that was brought to the meeting." Member Pehrson and Member Avdoulos accepted those changes.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Consideration on the request of Jeffery Wainwright of Secure Development for a Planning Commission determination regarding a proposed "cultured rock waterfall" as part of the Novi Family Fun Park. The subject property is located on the south side of Grand River Avenue between Taft and Beck roads. The subject site is approximately 10.53 acres.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth located the property on an aerial map. She said the Planning Commission approved the Preliminary Site Plan and Special Land Use in February of 2004. The zoning is I-1, light industrial, and OST, office/service/technology. The plans include a miniature golf area, go-cart tracks, trampoline, climbing wall, bumper boats, soccer cages, park and picnic areas, building for indoor recreation, storage building parking lots and detention ponds. The back four acres will remain undeveloped for the time being. Construction has begun. Near the front side of the property, the approved plans show a miniature golf area of 17, 717 square feet. The Final Site Plan showed the actual layout of the course – the holes, fairways, waterways, landscaping, etc.

Recently Mr. Wainwright asked the Building Department about installing a couple of waterfalls. The Planning Department felt that the waterfalls had never been reviewed before, although the Applicant said they were on the plan, just not labeled. The Applicant provided a plan showing the waterfalls.

The Planning Department believes the waterfalls were never clearly identified for the Planning Commission, and therefore the plan is here at this meeting. Ms. McBeth said the minutes indicated there was a discussion on the water features, but not a complete description.

One waterfall will be located at the entrance. It is 45 feet long and 16 feet tall. The Planning Department felt that they never reviewed this information, and the details were only provided to the Building Department. Because of the size of this addition, the Planning Department felt that the Planning Commission should review the plans.

The two waterfall features are not within the building setback requirements. They are not within the corner clearance areas. The Planning Commission should consider whether the original approval of the Preliminary Site Plan and Special Land Use included the intent to improve such features as part of the miniature golf area. The Planning Commission should consider whether additional review is needed by the City’s Staff and Consultants. The main waterfall, given its proximity to the entrance, is going to be very visible to the public. The appearance and maintenance of the structure might be something to consider. The Planning Commission should consider whether additional buffering might be needed. If the Planning Commission approves this plan, the Applicant will have to re-submit a revised Final Site Plan for review by the Planning Department and Building Department.

Joe Galvan represented the Applicant. He said that this plan was always shown on the plan. He said there might not have been discussion of the water features because there were so many other issues that were discussed at length. Mr. Galvan said this is a lovely feature and should be considered a positive aspect of the project. He apologized if this plan did not get conveyed properly the first time, and asked for approval so that construction of the site can continue.

Member Wrobel asked for the height of the structure. Mr. Galvan said it was twelve feet with two protrubences that reach 16 feet. It sits forty feet back from the road. Member Wrobel thought that miniature golf courses with mountains and waterfalls stick out like sore thumbs and are obnoxious. Member Wrobel said this plan might look a little better, although he wasn’t 100% sold.

Member Cassis asked whether the structure needed oversight by the Planning Department, aside from whether it was shown on the plan. Planner Tim Schmitt said it needed Planning Department oversight because the use is a Special Land Use. If this was a straightforward use, Mr. Schmitt said it would be a little less of an issue. The Planning Commission considered the impacts of this property in their Special Land Use review. Something like this that requires a building permit is substantial enough that it should be brought back to the Planning Commission’s attention. The details were asked for at the time of Preliminary Site Plan. They were not received until now.

Member Cassis asked if there were any other City codes that apply to this structure. Mr. Schmitt replied that one way the Planning Department could review this was as an accessory structure, but that is not what the Department wanted to do. Therefore there is not much in the Ordinance that applies to this waterfall. Ms. McBeth also agreed with the accessory structure comment. She said it is a permanent feature with a foundation, structural steel and requires a permit. The Planning Department hesitates to call it an accessory structure, but still wanted it brought to the attention of the Planning Commission.

Member Cassis’ concern was that the City’s code might be compromised with the Planning Commission’s approval of this structure. His position on this review is that if the structure doesn’t infract the City Code, then he was willing to give the Applicant the benefit of the doubt, that his understanding was he had shown the structure on his plan.

Member Pehrson said that Planning Commission tries to review all features on every plan. He believed that Mr. Wainwright did bring this waterfall to the attention of the Planning Commission. He said that comments made by the then-chair of the Planning Commission include statements about water features. He said he did not consider the structure an accessory structure. Ms. McBeth said the structure is set back probably farther than forty feet, and the structure is not expected to block any views.

Member Pehrson commented that the maintenance of this waterfall is important to him, because over time they look stained. He would like Mr. Wainwright to agree to do his very best in maintaining the structure. Mr. Wainwright, the Applicant, replied that the structure is made of concrete. The upper part is stained a natural rock color. The interior is stained a blue-white. The water is chlorinated. It is a self-contained pumping system. The rock feature in the front of the park is stained for a rock appearance. The water paths are sealed and painted. They can be maintained without sandblasting. He said it was a landmark to the park and must be beautiful all of the time.

Member Pehrson asked whether the waterfall would be on a timer much like the lights. Mr. Wainwright answered affirmatively. Member Pehrson asked if the sound would be audible at Grand River. Mr. Galvan said it would not.

Member Pehrson said the water feature was brought up originally. It was included in the original packet. He appreciated the Planning Department coming back to the Planning Commission to ask for input, and Mr. Wainwright for taking the time to come back. He had no problem with this waterfall.

Member Avdoulos expected a miniature golf course to have a theme associated with it. He did not have a problem with a sculptured rock sculpture or structure. He said it would be about 70-80 feet from Grand River, and the two structures will be 100 feet apart. They will be tightly woven in the golf course area. The Planning Department would not bring this back unless they were sure that more review was necessary. The original plan said "proposed water feature," which could be anything. This review is a fair clarification of the plan. Member Avdoulos had no issues with the noise. He felt the plan was appropriate. He was sure that the Building Department would ensure the structural soundness of the waterfall.

Chair Kocan asked if a gazebo is a structure. Mr. Schmitt responded affirmatively, so Chair Kocan said this, too, was a structure. Mr. Schmitt replied that anything attached to the ground is a structure. She had a problem with not calling this a structure. Mr. Schmitt said the Planning Department had a problem with calling this an accessory structure, because of façade, height, and location requirements. An accessory structure is defined as something that is accessory to the main structure of the site. It does not mean attached – it has to be detached.

Chair Kocan said that if residents have to comply with certain requirements, then this Applicant must also have to comply. Mr. Schmitt explained that there is a pending request in the City from someone to place a gazebo in the front yard.

Member Avdoulos asked if an entire plan or each building on a plan gets a permit. Mr. Schmitt replied that in this case, it is likely that each structure will get its own permit because of the phasing. A dumpster enclosure, a building and a shed will result in three permits. A lot of times they are all tied into one permit. Each structure is going to be inspected by the Building Department. Member Avdoulos noted that the climbing wall will be inspected too. He thought that the language was the hold-up, because calling it an accessory structure would prevent its placement in the front yard.

Mr. Schmitt said the distinction really is that the waterfall doesn’t have a functional purpose on the site, whereas a gazebo is a shelter. A dumpster enclosure shields a dumpster. The waterfall is more of a decorative feature. Ms. McBeth also said that the Planning Commission anticipated that the golf course would be in the front of the property. Chair Kocan said then, that this waterfall could be likened to a wind mill at a golf course. Chair Kocan confirmed with City Attorney David Gillam that consideration of the waterfall in this light is acceptable. He stated that Mr. Schmitt made some relevant points why the waterfall cannot be lumped in with traditional structures.

Mr. Gillam suggested language that the Planning Commission might wish to use in their motion to avoid any problems with the Special Land Use issue associated with this property. He recommended the Planning Commission adopt a resolution acknowledging and accepting the additional information being received from the Applicant in reference to the cultured waterfalls.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Cassis:

Chair Kocan said that the motion should also state that the Planning Commission review also considered that this waterfall is not in the corner clearance and it is not in the setback area. She further said that the Applicant should submit a revised Final Site Plan. Member Avdoulos and Member Cassis accepted this language.

Member Lipski asked what a revised Final Site Plan is. He said the discourse at this meeting challenged whether the waterfall was part of the original site plan, and now the City is asking for a revised Final Site Plan. Mr. Gillam responded that the revised Final Site Plan with this additional information included is the request. Ms. McBeth said that the Stamping Set is lacking this information, which is why the Building Department questioned this issue. When the Planning Department receives these details, the Building Department will have access to the information and will be able to review and approve a building permit. Mr. Schmitt said that the Applicant will submit the information and he will stamp it.

Mr. Galvan said that the Applicant will proceed with his application for the Building Permit. He said that the Planning Department has received copies of these plans, and they can be attached to the plans. He wanted to ensure that the Applicant can move forward with his construction. He said the Applicant will provide whatever additional paperwork the Planning Department deems necessary. Ms. McBeth said the Applicant should submit full sized plans, multiple copies, with the details of the waterfall attached.

Ms. McBeth said that the original signature of the engineer is required for the Building Department. The Applicant should submit twelve sets.

Mr. Galvan said this was a big deal. Mr. Schmitt said that he would work with the Applicant. Ms. McBeth also said that she would first like to speak with the Building Department to ensure that what is being asked for is what they need in order for the plan to proceed.

Chair Kocan said that the Planning Commission could make a motion requiring the Applicant to submit whatever it is that the Building Department needs. Mr. Galvan said the Applicant will submit whatever is necessary. He could not imagine that this issue should escalate any further.

There were no Consent Agenda Removals.

There were no Matters for Discussion.

There were no Supplemental Issues.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

City Attorney David Gillam told the Planning Commission that six votes are required to approve the Master Plan.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Cassis:

The meeting adjourned at 12:34 a.m.

MON 11/08/04 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:30 PM

TUE 11/09/04 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

WED 11/10/04 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

THU 11/11/04 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

MON 11/15/04 IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE 6:00 PM

MON 11/22/04 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:30 PM

THU-FRI 11/24-11/25 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

MON 12/06/04 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:30 PM

TUE 12/07/04 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

Transcribed by Jane L. Schimpf, December 7, 2004 Signature on File

Date Approved: January 12, 2005 Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date