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

Present: Members John Avdoulos, Victor Cassis, Andrew Gutman, David Lipski (7:45 p.m.), Lynn Kocan, Mark Pehrson, Lowell Sprague

Absent: Member Wayne Wrobel

Also Present: Barbara McBeth, Director of Planning; Tim Schmitt, Planner; Mark Spencer, Planner; Lance Shipman, Landscape Architect; Ben Croy, Civil Engineer; David Gillam, City Attorney; John Freeland, Wetland Consultant

Member Cassis led the meeting attendees in the recitation of 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.

There were no Committee Reports.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth told the Planning Commission that at the last City Council meeting, two phases of Liberty Park were approved – one for 136 single family detached homes and another for 56 single family detached homes. Also, Triangle Development presented their vision for Main Street. On June 16, 2005 there will be a presentation on "Protecting our Lakes and Streams" by the Friends of the Rouge, and the Planning Commission members were invited to attend.

Moved by Member Sprague, seconded by Member Gutman:

The Public Hearing was reopened on the request of William Roskelly of Basney & Smith for Preliminary Site Plan, Wetland Permit, Woodland Permit, and Storm Water Management Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 25, east of Meadowbrook Road, between Nine and Ten Mile in the R-4, Single Family Residential District. The subject property is approximately 14.97 acres. The Applicant is proposing ten single-family homes.

Planner Tim Schmitt located the property on an aerial map. Meadowbrook is directly to its west. Willowbrook Estates II is to the north. Heatherbrae Subdivision is to the south. Heatherwoode Subdivision is to the east. Orchard Hills West Subdivision is to the northwest, and Mr. Schmitt noted that its final plat was recently approved. The subject property is zoned R-4, single family residential, as are the properties to the north, south and northwest. To the east and west the properties are zoned R-3. The Master Plan designates this entire area for single family residential. To the southeast there is a private park in the Village Oaks area, and to the northeast there is a public park.

Mr. Schmitt said that this property’s northerly border runs along Ingersol Creek east of Meadowbrook Road. The area surrounding this creek is a large flood plain area. There is a pocket of woodlands in the center of the property that is contiguous with the wetlands.

Mr. Schmitt said that this project was before the Planning Commission on April 13, 2005, at which time the review was postponed to provide the Applicant time to gather additional information. Supplemental information has since been provided. Mr. Schmitt reminded the Planning Commission that all reviewing disciplines recommended approval of the plan, and the only two deficiencies with the plan were sidewalk issues. The first request for a waiver was for the north side of the proposed road. This is a single-loaded road, and the sidewalk would further impact the wetlands and woodlands; therefore, the Planning Department supports this request. The second request was for a waiver of the Meadowbrook Road sidewalk; this would have to be designed as a boardwalk and would terminate on both ends to prevent people from falling off the walk. The walk would be virtually inaccessible. The Master Plan for Land Use indicates that the bike path is recommended for the west side of the road, consistent with what is being constructed for the Orchard Hills West Subdivision. The Pathway Phasing Plan indicates that this is one of the long-term sidewalks that the City is looking to install. Mr. Roskelly’s requests for waivers would go before City Council.

Mr. Schmitt told the Planning Commission that the Assessing Department has researched the ownership of this land. Since 1997 Mr. Kurt Roskelly and Mr. William Roskelly (son and father, respectively) performed an arm’s length transaction to transfer ownership rights, and this did not uncap the taxable value. The Planning Department has no evidence that this property was ever owned by the City. A title search may provide more information, but there is no evidence that there are more owners between the ownerships on record of Kaufman and Broad and the Roskellys. Mr. Schmitt also noted that the original plans called for the road to intersect Meadowbrook Road; otherwise, the plan before the Planning Commission at this meeting is substantially similar to the original plan.

Chair Kocan noted that Member Lipski joined the meeting at 7:45 p.m.

Civil Engineer Ben Croy addressed the Planning Commission. He said the potential impacts on the floodplain area from this project have been discussed at length. The anticipated estimated drainage flow rates, pre- and post-development, have also been discussed. The routing of the storm sewer is very simple. The storm drainage on the site is going to be routed to the existing inlet to Villagewood Lake. It will be directed south. Nothing will be discharged directly to Ingersol Creek to the north. The lake acts as a regional detention basin and has a structure on the west side of the lake that regulates the flow. It is a typical structure, a little outdated, but typical for a regional detention basin. It offers engineered flood attenuation during storm events from the one-year storm to the 100-year storm. It would likely overflow at the 100-year storm level, but it would not be designed beyond that level. The water then travels the storm sewer to the west, and then straight north and exits at an end section. It travels via swale and enters into Ingersol Creek at that point. It continues westward under Meadowbrook Road, where the bridge is under repair, and into Meadowbrook Lake, and then meets up with the Middle Rouge River and continues onward. It is the only possible design for this site. It is ideal, given the lake and the regional detention capabilities that the lake has.

Mr. Croy shows a FEMA map of the 100-year flood plain. It does make some directional changes based on the contours of the land. The floodplain delineation is currently under review and is being updated by FEMA. There are preliminary maps available that show a shrunken floodplain. Specifically, the southern limits have been reduced. It pushed the northern boundary up, to the area of the treeline. That is critical information for this project, because the cul-de-sac that is being proposed conflicts with the current line, but not with the anticipated future line of the floodplain. That verification will be made when FEMA adopts the new map or when Mr. Roskelly seeks a map amendment. That would be accomplished by surveying the area and based on the elevation of the area, he provides the contour of that elevation and shows that this development will not impact the floodplain based on field survey. The lines are currently based on aerial maps and trees get in the way, along with everything else. They should be considered a guide. It is common to update the maps with field measurements. Either of these two options would have to be accomplished in order for the property to be properly permitted.

Mr. Croy said that FEMA regulates the floodplain and the reason for that is to maintain the path of the flood flow during high storm events, and to provide storage for the additional flood waters, until the water can make its way down stream. He explained how the map shows the area where the water is expected to be moving, and the area where the overflow is expected to be stored. Depth is not depicted on the maps. The primary issue regulated by FEMA, to ensure that the floodplain doesn’t have any negative effect on the area, is the limiting of structures in the floodplain. Typically, they regulate fill being placed inside the floodplain. If fill is introduced, it can back up the stormwater upstream and cause the floodplain to expand horizontally, further than necessary, and push what would be stored in that area further downstream. Filling the floodplain is a very serious matter. It should always be avoided, or additional storage area should be provided elsewhere. When a plan is modeled, it may not affect the drainage after all, but in general, the City assumes a plan will have a great affect and options are considered to avoid problems.

Mr. Croy said that most importantly, he wished to articulate that this developer is not proposing any fill in the floodplain. If he was, the Engineering Review would take a completely different position. Without any proposed fill in the floodplain, the development will not aggravate any existing undesirable conditions that are within the floodplain.

Mr. Croy performed some calculations to share with the Planning Commission. The run-off coefficient times the storm intensity times the area in question, in pre-development conditions based on a vegetated area, would equal 5 CFS of flow rate to the surrounding bodies of water. For comparison purposes, based on proposed conditions where impervious areas are introduced (houses, road, driveways) increases the run-off coefficient and results in 12 CFS to the surrounding bodies of water. 12 CFS is more than twice as much as 5 CFS, but more importantly, all that flow is going to be directed south to Villagewood Lake. There, it passes through the control structure, and based on the modeling in the stormwater Master Plan, that basin is reducing the 100-year flow rates by 70%. Using that number, reducing 12 CFS by 70%, the result is 3.6 CFS for post-development conditions. These numbers can be compared to the downstream point, just upstream of Meadowbrook Road Bridge, where the lake discharges into Ingersol Creek. Give or take errors in calculations, 5 CFS and 3.6 CFS are essentially equal, and Mr. Croy predicted that the flow is actually going to be reduced at that point.

Mr. Croy said that based on current conditions, the storage volume required would be 7,600 cubic feet of storage. With the proposed development, the number is 23,000 cubic feet of storage. When impervious area is introduced, the amount of stormwater discharged is increased. The additional 14,000 cubic feet will go to the lake and will eventually get down stream. That is not anywhere as important as the flow rate itself. If this lake didn’t provide a controlled outlet, there might be a problem. However, this is a regional basin and the flow rate is controlled. That is a critical point of the stormwater discharge and management.

Mr. Croy said another issue brought forward was the adverse impacts to the area and the natural features during construction. Mr. Croy explained that there is a soil erosion permitting process and there are inspectors who frequent the site to ensure compliance. He understood that there would be a watchful eye on this project, and he encouraged the reporting of any wrongdoing to the City.

Mr. Croy concluded by stating the flooding that is occurring on the property and this proposed development are almost completely unrelated subjects. They are not linked together. There is no fill proposed in the floodplain and that is the key point of information. Mr. Croy said he could not stress that enough.

Mr. William Roskelly, the Applicant, 33177 Schoolcraft, Livonia, addressed the Planning Commission. He stated that his impression was that the Public Hearing was closed. Chair Kocan responded that the Public Hearing was continued, and she thought that was part of the motion, because new information would have been introduced. Mr. Roskelly said that the minutes indicate that the Public Hearing was closed. Chair Kocan said that this review was posted as a Public Hearing and she did not think that this would hurt. Mr. Roskelly responded that he was referred to Roberts’ Rules. Mr. Roskelly offered to answer any questions.

Chair Kocan told the audience that previous comments are still part of this record. She asked if anyone in the audience had any new information to bring forward, that they speak for three minutes or less.

Robert Trickey, 23033 Heatherbrae Way: Paid a premium for their property because there were no houses on the lake. He said their subdivision has become a freeway with the closing of Meadowbrook for repair. He said the roads would be damaged by the construction trucks and they would bear the brunt of this damage. The runoff from construction would put silt in the lake and choke the fish out and turn the lake into a mud hole. He said that neighborhood watches and inspectors are reactive, not proactive.

Jackie Pringle, 23285 West LeBost: Presented pictures to show the delicate nature of the area. She said that this area doesn’t have standing water now because Meadowbrook is drained. She said she was not asking the Planning Commission to stop this development, because Mr. Roskelly had the right to do what he wants to do with his land. She asked the Planning Commission to move cautiously to ensure no more problems occur. She said the wetlands are at maximum capacity right now. She asked for an exact number of trees affected by this development. She said that the telephone poles in their back yards stand at an angle. She said that the woodlands in Novi are protected and that this is taken into consideration. She asked why the wetland is labeled as a park. She did not think the City should grant any waivers to assist this Applicant with encroaching the wetlands or woodlands. She said that the Applicant has offered to donate the wetland to the City, and she cautioned the City about taking ownership of the land because of the possibility that the Applicant may have adversely affected it. She wondered why he waited fifteen years to develop the land.

Virginia Blaut, 23048 Heatherbrae Way: Thought the proposal was ludicrous and could not believe that the Planning Commission was even considering the plan. She thought the quality of her life was being affected by Meadowbrook Road being closed and this plan would exacerbate the situation. She said that her neighbors use this land for their children and dogs to get away from the manic city and the exhaust. She said that this plan represented greed and it was wrecking the quality of life. She supported her neighbors in fighting what she thought was a ridiculous plan that should be built somewhere with more room.

James Bruce, 23780 East LeBost: Objected to the plan because he thought the area was either a wetland or floodplain regulated by state or federal government that would require a permit for alteration. He said that the runoff from these homes will drain to Villagewood Lake and ultimately to Meadowbrook Lake, where the City is currently spending $1,000,000 to dredge. He said that the control system for that lake has already failed. He said his first encounter with stormwater problems was in 1985 and the City’s engineer told him he wouldn’t have any problems because the land was now being engineered; he has seen water as close as twelve feet to his home. He said that more water runs through this area as a result of all the development along Meadowbrook Road.

Katherine Kekeeley, 23067 Heatherbrae: Said that Meadowbrook Lake was last dredged in 1982 and Villagewood Lake became a dry bottom lake until September 1982. She said that this dredging is projected for completion in August, but they are behind schedule. She said that the far northeast corner has receded 72 feet. She has lost fifteen feet, as has her neighbor. Another neighbor has lost 17 feet. She estimated another home at 60-72 feet. She said there will not be water in this lake if Meadowbrook is dredged to 18 feet. She said there was silt in Villagewood Lake for three years, and it drained into Meadowbrook Lake and is now costing the taxpayers. She did not think a judge would rule that the City had to allow this development. She asked the Planning Commission to take their time in considering this plan, because there could be massive lawsuits as a result of this plan. She asked them to have compassion for 19 landowners abutting a lake that is losing water.

Jennifer Huggins, 23131 Heatherbrae Way: Presented an alternate plan that would save the area that most people use for their dogs and for fishing. She proposed a road re-design that would save 39 trees. She now believes this is area is a floodplain and questioned how the floodplain line could just be moved to accommodate this development.

Jerry Helton, 23262 West LeBost: Questioned whether the new bridge at Meadowbrook will be able to accommodate the runoff from this new subdivision, the other new subdivision in the area, and the existing subdivisions. He asked if the lake is going to overflow more quickly. He said he has seen the water at the west end actually flow over the bridge. He encouraged the City to look closely at this situation.

William Pyant, 41240 Village Lake St: Paid a premium for his home and also built a $150,000 addition on to it. He was appalled that the City was considering this plan.

Mav Sanghvi, 22779 Shadow Pine: Said that the Applicant must conform to the City’s standards. He thought the plan should have access on to Meadowbrook Road, which might be better from a safety standpoint as well. He hoped that none of this development would begin until the bridge is complete. He understood that the Applicant has a right to develop the land, but asked that he be a good neighbor.

Cheryl Murphy, 22798 Shadow Pine: Was disappointed that a City employee told her that the access to this subdivision would be through Heatherwoode, when in fact they refer to themselves as Village Oaks. She said this did not provide a fair representation to these homeowners of the impact of this development. She wondered why the road does not have access to Meadowbrook.

LuAnn Kozma, 23837 West LeBost: Suggested that the City would be seeking larger acreage from developers in other sections of Novi for the preservation of wetlands and woodlands. She said that Section 25 was the most dense section in the City. She said that she and her neighbors value this open space. She said that the City listened to 28 residents and put a 100-year moratorium on property located near Garfield Road. She asked the City to follow its own Master Plan and save this land. She said this was the last opportunity for the City to protect land in this area of Novi.

Andrew Mutch, 24740 Taft: Thought that no one would choose development over preservation for this land. He did not support the project. He suggested that the City seek funds from the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund, an agency he said had $20,000,000 available for, among other things, land acquisition. He said that the City would have to come up with 25% of the purchase price, and Mr. Roskelly has already agreed to donate some of the land. The deadline is August 1, 2005. He encouraged the Planning Commission to make a motion recommending that City Council act most quickly on this matter.

John Pringle, 23285 West LeBost: Objected to the project because of the floodplain. He did not believe that Mr. Roskelly would make the money he anticipated on 2,200 sf homes. He wondered how long the project would take. He wondered if the homes would get bigger as time went on.

Unidentified speaker (Katherine KeKeeley?): Suggested that Mr. Roskelly would have a hard time selling homes on a lake that is dry. She said that seeking a grant was the answer.

Chair Kocan asked Member Sprague to read the correspondence into the record:

John Beavis, 22859 Heatherbrae: Approved of the project.

James and Alice Cardella, 40777 Village Wood: Thought the roads would be ruined by construction equipment. Concerned about traffic, density and speed of cars.

Judith Earl, 23906 East LeBost: Objected to the project because the wetlands and woodlands were not being protected.

Pirjo Eriksson, 40705 Village Wood: Objected because there were enough houses and traffic, and the construction could damage their roads.

Jeffrey Fink, 23805 West LeBost: Objected because of the water level of Meadowbrook Lake.

Mike Goldstein, 41050 McMahon: Objected because the wetlands and woodlands would be destroyed.

Florence Gopigian, 40740 Village Wood Road: Objected for traffic, density and speed of traffic reasons.

Conway and Louise Jeffries, 22760 Meadowbrook: Both approved of the project.

Deanna Jones, 22786 Shadow Pine Way: Objected for wetland and traffic reasons. The plan would displace wildlife.

John Keller, 23261 West LeBost: Objected because large homes would not fit in the neighborhood. The plan would create noise, dust and traffic for years. The soil tests taken this year would yield false results.

Martha and Paul Mazur, 23186 West LeBost: Objected for wetland and traffic reasons.

David Medved, 41126 Village Lake: Objected because of the impact on the environment.

Susan Olkowski, 23303 West LeBost: Objected for the plan’s impact on the water table. The current soil boring information will not be accurate.

Susan Redmond, 23424 West LeBost: Objected because she preferred to preserve the wetlands.

Paul Root, 23828 East Lebost: Objected for traffic and wildlife displacement reasons.

Elaine Walko, 23147 Heatherbrae: Objected and felt that Kaufman and Broad must have had a very good reason to abandon this development years ago. She heard that the creek would have to be rerouted.

Ivan Wicks, 23682 Winfield: Objected because he preferred to keep the land green.

Pinagiato Wolstoncroft, 40611 Oakwood Drive: Opposed to the project because she preferred to preserve the natural features.

Sandra Zuchlewski, 40827 Village Wood: Opposed for wetland, traffic, flooding and stormwater issues.

Ted Zuchlewski, 40827 Village Wood: Objected for traffic, wetland, stormwater reasons, and the homes will be out of character.

William and Lois Pyant, 41240 Village Lake: Objected. (Mr. Pyant spoke at meeting; letter was not read).

Cheryl Murphy, 22798 Shadow Pine Way: Objected. (Ms. Murphy spoke at meeting; letter was not read).

Jennifer Huggins, 23131 Heatherbrae Way: Objected. (Ms. Huggins spoke at meeting; letter was not read).

Chair Kocan closed the Public Hearing.

Member Sprague said the project was of a sensitive nature. He appreciated that this was the densest portion of the City, but he said that unfortunately, the City does not own the land. Therefore, as long as the Ordinances are met, the Applicant has the right to develop the land. He said that the options are for the City to buy the land or to get a grant to buy the land. This would take Mr. Roskelly’s approval to do so. Member Sprague appreciated that the citizens have come to show their interest in this matter. Member Sprague said that this issue was postponed because the Planning Commission wanted to have some more answers. He said that there seems to be too much water, and too little water, in the area, and that needs to be discussed further.

Member Sprague asked Mr. Croy to discuss the water to the north and south of this property. Mr. Croy said that the level of Villagewood Lake is a direct result of Meadowbrook Lake being dredged. It is a temporary condition. It is unsightly. They plan to drop the Meadowbook Lake bottom either 18 or 20 feet in the northern portion. That will have no effect on the water surface elevation following construction. It will take a certain amount of time to fill the lake back up. There are two water courses that drain into Meadowbrook Lake. One is the Middle Rouge River, which is fed by Walled Lake and a few other tributary rivers. Ingersol Creek and Bishop Creek also feed into this system. The dam at the south end of Meadowbrook Lake that regulates the water will maintain the lake at its pre-dredging level, though Mr. Croy would not speculate on when the residents could expect this to occur. There will be more room for sediment removal over the next fifteen years on the north part of the lake.

Member Sprague asked if the system was working properly, if the lake needs to be dredged every 25 years. Mr. Croy said that it is far from ideal, that a lake of this magnitude would need to be dredged. It can be attributed to all the previous development in the City that did not have sedimentation control, which is now required. There is a lot of sediment introduced into this system, and now the City has learned from these mistakes and subsequently introduced the Stormwater Management Ordinance. He said that the creeks are fast moving so the sediment remains in the flow; when the flow slows at the lake, the sediment drops when the velocity drops, and in this case that is at the north end of Meadowbrook Lake. This will continue without large amounts of money spent on control structures upstream. There is no land or money to do that, so it isn’t a feasible option. Dredging will have to occur every so often.

Member Sprague asked what type of impact the construction would have on this system. Mr. Croy responded that a residential site does not compare to the impact of a commercial site, but there will be some sediment and runoff. There are sub-surface swirl concentrator structures that remove sediment, oil, gas, etc., that would be introduced to the stream. That has to be maintained properly, and then there is minimal impact caused.

Mr. Croy said that the sequence of construction would be: 1) Install silt fence and tree fence, and temporary soil erosion measures; 2) Grade the property to reach gross elevations; 3) Install storm sewer, swirl concentrator and sediment control and additional temporary construction/soil erosion measures on the catch basins; Continue construction.

Mr. Croy said that there is a permit in place, and the City follows the MDEQ’s part 41 rules. Also, the City has its own rules that are more strict. The City holds a pre-construction meeting with the developer to go over all of the rules. There are onsite meetings. Inspectors meet on site and perform check-ups. When a developer is not in compliance, he has five days to do so or he is given a notice of violation. Mr. Croy said it was a good system.

Member Sprague asked whether the bridge would be able to accommodate the increased water. Mr. Croy responded that this development would add approximately 3.6-5.0 CFS to the stream. He would guess that the bridge would be able to accommodate that flow. The City is not looking to widen the gap under the bridge. That is the only way the repair could be done within a short time frame. Widening it would have added about 18 months because the MDEQ would have had to get involved. Mr. Croy reiterated that the 3.6-5.0 CFS was not insignificant, but it did only represent a small portion of the water flow.

Member Sprague recapitulated what had been discussed, and said that the development of this site would improve the engineering of the water flow, specifically to the north. Mr. Croy responded that the overall runoff would increase. The immediate drainage to the north will be cut drastically. Only the portion from the cul-de-sac north – the unpaved portion – will drain that direction. From the cul-de-sac south, the entire area will drain to the south – some of this area currently drains to the north. The rate will be controlled. The overall volume will increase, but it is the flow rate that can and will be controlled.

Member Sprague asked if that will help with the water loss in the lake. Mr. Croy responded that the water loss is a temporary condition and the City shouldn’t focus on that. Once Meadowbrook Lake is fully operational, Village Wood Lake would follow suit and return to its water level. The aesthetics would go back to normal. Member Sprague said he thought the City should focus on it, especially since "temporary" can’t be defined.

Member Sprague asked about the flood plain line. Mr. Croy said that FEMA determines water surface elevations throughout the water course. In this case, it is elevation 840. They extrapolate that water elevation to contours on the ground. They find the 840 contour, both north and south of Ingersol Creek, and that is where they draw the 100-year flood plain. Their finding of the contours is based on aerial photos and it is at a scale of about 1:1,000 and if the picture is taken in the summer the leaves can be in the way. Mr. Croy conceded that it is an inaccurate process, but everyone who deals with this discipline understands that. If a project does not impact that, it moves forward. FEMA is in the process of updating the maps in Oakland County, and in this case, it appears that this elevation will be updated. The preliminary map, which cannot be used in any official capacity, does indicate that the floodplain line on the south side of the creek is moving to the north.

Member Sprague asked if the number is 840, and a survey indicates the land is lower than 840, the developer would not be able to build. Mr. Croy answered affirmatively. He said that the Mr. Roskelly would likely perform some additional spot grades once he moves further into his process. The City would require him to modify his plan if he is in the floodplain.

Member Sprague asked about the tree removal. Landscape Architect Lance Shipmen said that if a development falls within a regulated woodland, the woodland is protected. The Ordinance dictates what would need to be replaced based on the number of trees greater than 8" dbh proposed for removal. Understory is also protected. Once the plan is finalized, the protection fence must be installed to protect the woodland area.

Mr. Schmitt said that according to Mr. Roskelly, 39 trees are proposed for removal, though Mr. Schmitt could only find 32 on the plan. 56 replacement trees are required, and they are all proposed to be replanted on this site.

Mr. Shipman said that the Applicant has been very responsive in working with the Woodland Consultant. Mr. Shipman said that 8"-11" trees require one on replacement; 11"-20" requires two replacements and any tree greater than 20" requires three replacement trees. Mr. Shipman thought there were some other conditions pertaining to landmark trees.

Mr. Schmitt said that the 39 trees noted by Mr. Roskelly come from the original submittal, which had the road further impacting to the north. After getting the Consultant reviews back from his first submittal, Mr. Roskelly redesigned the road to protect more of the woodlands – apparently seven more trees. Member Sprague asked if the road design helped the water runoff issue further to the north. Mr. Schmitt responded that the 840 elevations are further off the road, thereby bringing more water.

Member Sprague asked what the timing of this project might be. Mr. Schmitt responded said that the best case scenario would be for the Applicant to make the Final Site Plan revisions (five week review) and submit a stamping set (two weeks). The Applicant could then get on the site once he has his right-of-way permit, soil erosion permit, wetland permit, woodland permit and applicable fees being paid. Theoretically, he could be on-site in approximately two months. Mr. Croy told the Planning Commission that the bridge would be complete before Labor Day. Mr. Roskelly told Member Sprague that he did not think that he would be able to begin until at least September. Director of Planning Barbara McBeth told the Planning Commission that they could not impose time frames on the Applicant, unless it pertained in some way to the plan. This would be true for the City Council as well. City Attorney David Gillam concurred. Member Sprague encouraged Mr. Roskelly to be a good neighbor and not commence construction until the bridge construction is complete.

Member Sprague asked for comment on the use of the roads for ingress. He asked if the construction traffic would run concurrently with the school traffic. Mr. Croy said that the developer has not indicated what his traffic route would be – there are a couple different routes that he could take. Either route would probably have the same effect. The right-of-way permit would require a substantial bond to cover any repairs to the road which may become necessary. The amount of the bond collected is intended to be enough to bring the roads back to like condition.

Member Sprague stated that he agreed with the Applicant’s sidewalk waiver requests, though he did think that the City’s trailways plan is important. He asked if the money the Applicant saves by not building the sidewalks could be placed in an escrow account for possible future use. Mr. Schmitt responded that the City Council could make that determination. He said that the problem remains that the amount collected in today’s dollars may not be enough for future construction, even if an inflation factor is built into the number; the Finance Department is hesitant to escrow these types of future funds, and Mr. Schmitt preferred to defer this decision to City Council and the Finance Department.

Member Cassis stated that he was the catalyst in having this project’s consideration postponed because there were so many outstanding issues that needed to be addressed. The City has already expended a lot of time, money and hours to allow this Applicant the opportunity to provide those answers.

Member Cassis asked about Villagewood Park. Mr. Schmitt said that this is a site condo project, therefore common areas are referred to as parks. The word "private" means that it is for the private enjoyment of the condominium association. There will be a Master Deed that outlines the limitations of the park.

Member Cassis asked about the water easement that is near lots 9 and 10. Mr. Schmitt said that it appears that this is the only location for that water easement. It needs to get to Meadowbrook Road, and this route is better than plowing through the wetlands.

Member Cassis thought that Mr. Mutch had a good idea, albeit most likely too late in the process to have an effect. He appreciated the compassion that the other speakers expressed. Member Cassis asked if Mr. Roskelly would be willing to sell the total property for a park. Mr. Roskelly said he could not answer that question at this time. He said that his desire was to build ten homes, though he admitted that with certain road blocks and the right amount of money, everything is for sale.

Member Cassis suggested that if the grant for the park land was possible, Mr. Roskelly could donate his portion of the land as the grant’s "down payment." He said many speakers expressed their love for the good old days and the use of the land for private enjoyment. Member Cassis asked the Applicant if he would even be willing to forego one or two more lots for a greater sized park. Mr. Roskelly responded that his plan already relinquishes all but four or five acres for the ten homes he has proposed, which represents two-thirds of the land he owns. Mr. Roskelly said he feels as though he is being punished and pushed into giving more land up. He thought he was already being very generous. He is not encroaching the wetlands or woodlands. The land is zoned according to his plan. He has been paying taxes accordingly. He implored the Planning Commission to pass this consideration on to City Council for their approval (for the design and construction waivers). Mr. Schmitt also clarified that a denial of the wetland or woodland permit or the Stormwater Management Plan would also go to City Council.

Member Cassis said that lots 9 and 10 are pretty big and perhaps they could be reduced in some fashion. Mr. Roskelly said that with setbacks, these lots have already been laid out with a shoehorn. He was not prepared to relinquish one or two more lots.

Member Cassis said that even if the City submits for the grant within the next six weeks, he had his doubts that the government would move fast enough with the grant approval process to have an effect on this property. Member Cassis wondered if there was the possibility that the time frame could be elongated such that this park issue could have an opportunity to resolve itself.

Member Gutman appreciated the interest this project has generated, and he said that the Planning Commission takes their charge very seriously. He thought Mr. Mutch was creative in his suggestion, and Ms. Huggins was creative in her alternative plan for the site. Member Gutman asked Mr. Roskelly if he would consider redesigning his site as Ms. Huggins suggested. Mr. Roskelly said he would not consider it.

Member Gutman said he was touched by the emotional outpour from the neighbors. He said that Mr. Roskelly has the right to develop his land in accordance with the Ordinance that is in place. He thought Mr. Croy did a tremendous job in explaining the site planning issues. He clarified Mr. Croy’s comment, that the City would encourage residents to keep a watchful eye on the project, not that Mr. Croy was suggesting that the residents were the watchful eye of this project. He reiterated that Mr. Roskelly’s plan meets the Ordinance requirements.

Member Avdoulos asked what the possibility was to provide this site with Meadowbrook Road access. He noted that the westerly boundary of the site was a wetland. Mr. Schmitt responded that that Planning Department tries to reduce the impact on the natural features. Their conservative estimate of adding another 100 cars to the road system in place within the subdivision is reasonable. Member Avdoulos asked if the construction crews could use a Meadowbrook egress during construction, but Mr. Schmitt said this would result in a permanent one-acre impact to the wetland. It might result in flooding to the north.

Member Avdoulos asked when Meadowbrook Lake’s dredging would be complete. Chair Kocan said that July 25^th would be when the water begins refilling the lake, based on information she heard at a homeowners’ meeting. She also stated that the date was July 5^th, which is the 120-day deadline.

Member Avdoulos said that this area was developed differently during the original construction. The lots were tighter. This piece of property has been vacant and the residents have accepted it as vacant land. The proposal on the table is for ten sites. To the south of the lake, there are twenty sites. To the north there are 13 sites along the perimeter. In the past a lot of density and overdevelopment took place, and previous Planning Commissions have learned to help plan and build projects a little better. Because of the concerns expressed by the residents, the postponement of this consideration occurred to provide more time to get answers.

Member Avdoulos said that it was up to the Applicant on whether he would like to donate the park land and sell the remaining land to the City. It is not the City’s place to force this issue. He routinely tells his children that people who own open space have the right to develop the land in accordance with the Ordinance. His concern with this site plan is the proximity of the floodplain, and that is why he wanted technical answers regarding this issue. Member Avdoulos did not think that the City would endorse a plan just to endorse it, that it would certainly seek to validate the claims made by the Applicant. He thought that because the Applicant is a civil engineer himself, he understood the site and would know how to design it so it wouldn’t flood. The road was pulled south to improve the site. The wetlands were re-reviewed and again, they stated the impact was limited to a catch basin. This will all be verified, but it does appear that the fill will not go into the floodplain. The Woodland Consultant commended the Applicant for blending into the natural environment. The rest of the reviews also indicate plan compliance. Traffic that is going to through this subdivision is obviously increased because of the bridge. People who live in this area are probably navigating their way through this subdivision while Meadowbrook is closed.

Member Avdoulos said that the inspections and meetings that the City now requires will help minimize problems associated with construction development. He said that Mr. Roskelly is highly regarded and he was sure that he would work in harmony with the residents. Member Avdoulos said that his questions have been answered and he did not see a reason to deny this plan. He would prefer if this plan did not get underway until Meadowbrook Road repairs are complete and the lake is dredged. He guessed that this would be the timeframe anyway. Member Avdoulos said that with each of the reviewing disciplines approving of this plan, he felt that he also had to approve the plan. Member Avdoulos said that the Applicant had the right to develop his property, as long as the Ordinance requirements were met. He was not in a position to design this project for the Applicant. He was charged, as a Planning Commission member, to ensure that the Ordinance requirements were met.

Member Pehrson asked about the soil borings. Mr. Croy said that the soil borings are not required until the time of Final Site Plan submittal. The plan states that the Applicant has done his due diligence, and the land appears to be a mix of sandy clay and other clay mixtures under the eight inches of top soil. Generally, that type of sub-base is great for roads. One of the variables discussed in the City is the level of the ground water, which is probably going to be reduced on a soil boring taken today, in light of the reduced lake levels. The main constituent of the road sub-base is the soils. The City will review the soil borings. If they determine that there is peat, it will be removed or excavated and an engineered fill would be put in its place.

Member Pehrson asked if the Planning Commission could make stipulations on the movement of construction traffic. Mr. Gillam responded that as part of the process of approving a Preliminary Site Plan, the Planning Commission has the authority to impose reasonable conditions. Restrictions upon construction traffic would be a reasonable condition. Based upon his review of the materials and the discussions that have ensued, he did not think that the Planning Commission could formulate what those reasonable conditions are. It is possible that this issue is something that Mr. Roskelly is willing to work with the City on - trying to accommodate school buses and things like that. Mr. Gillam reminded the Planning Commission that there are other Ordinances that cover noise, truck traffic, and things like that. Mr. Roskelly said he would certainly agree to any restriction as to the time element, size of load, directions, or anything of that nature. Mr. Roskelly would also have to agree that nothing would start before Labor Day. He would agree to comply with the rules and requests of the City.

Member Pehrson asked if the two-thirds of the land not being developed should be made part of a conservation easement. Mr. Schmitt responded that it could be made part of the wetland permit motion.

Chair Kocan said this was a difficult decision. She said the Planning Commission takes great pride in enforcing the Ordinances. John Freeland from ECT, the City’s Wetland Consultant, addressed the Planning Commission at the request of Chair Kocan. He said that on February 18^th revised Preliminary Site Plan review, they gave conditional approval of the plan – five conditions were cited. One condition was to portray the wetland buffer on the final plan. Based on their measurements, it does not appear that the buffer is impacted. That will be clarified on the final plan. Chair Kocan was concerned that this was not shown on the Preliminary Site Plan. This is a hydrologically sensitive area. Dr. Freeland said that they have not seen the final plan yet. Chair Kocan said that she knew that she has seen this information on Preliminary Site Plan submittals before. She would expect no infringement on that buffer. Dr. Freeland said he expected the same.

Chair Kocan hoped that another condition is that absolutely no fill be placed in the floodplain. Dr. Freeland said there is an area of impact in the southwest corner where the catch basin will be located. The volume of fill represented by that structure isn’t known exactly, but that information will be provided at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. They expect it to be a small amount. They have also asked for the information regarding the temporary impact caused by the utility structure, which is also expected to be small.

Chair Kocan asked Dr. Freeland what his knowledge is of FEMA. She figured that because the location of development was always referred to as the upland area, there would be more than just a four or five foot differential in the lay of the land. Dr. Freeland said he would defer to Mr. Croy for a response to that statement. He said that the MDEQ also regulates floodplains and when there are proposed floodplain fills, the DEQ typically requires compensatory cuts. In this situation, as it relates to what is shown on the plans, Dr. Freeland did not see any proposed fill for the area within the depicted floodplain.

Chair Kocan asked whether the 845 upland area was sufficient for basements. Her biggest problem with the plan is the whole water issue. Water has a mind of its own. She said this is again proven by the Meadowbrook Lake dredging. She stated for the record that only half of the lake is being dredged. The wetlands across the street are dry. The lake is lowering. In order for the City to get accurate readings, to get water table lines, to know exactly what can be built where, the City needs the lake to be at pre-dredging levels. Otherwise, the City cannot determine what the impacts will be. To review this information at this time is irresponsible. She would not approve of that. She was not trying to punish Mr. Roskelly, but he has a responsibility to maintain his environmentally sensitive land. She would like to have the soil boring information collected once the lake has returned to its normal level. This would save everyone money. If the land can’t be developed, why start the process.

Dr. Freeland said that this is a State-regulated wetland. The MDEQ would require a permit. He has not yet seen a copy of this permit.

Chair Kocan was concerned about Similar/Dissimilar aspect of the Ordinance. This land is surrounded by a forty-year old subdivision. The Applicant has stated that his homes would be about 2,800-3,000 sf, which she believed was out of character to the adjacent homes. She said that the Applicant has to be sensitive to this. Chair Kocan said that it looked like the construction access would be through Village Oaks. This is similar to what happened at Scenic Pines, and therefore she said she expected the motion to require something like, "…subject to the maintenance and reconstruction of the roads during and after construction, dust maintenance control and the stipulation that the roads be videotaped before and after construction to determine reconstruction requirements. Limit construction times with respect to elementary school bus schedule and construction traffic to comply with City load limits." Chair Kocan noted that these roads were recently improved at a great cost.

Chair Kocan said that the deeding of the seven acres of the City would be handled best through a Conservation Easement. Giving the land to the City makes it the City’s responsibility. She did not see this land as a benefit to the City. She did not believe there were any detention areas needed for the area. The land would remain a park for the residents in the area. She said it was unfortunate that grants weren’t pursued ahead of time. She said she knew a grant application was sent out for the property between Meadowbrook Lake Subdivision and what will become the road to Orchard Hills West. The City was at the top of the list and then the State government zapped the plan. She thought that the northerly homeowners need a guarantee that they will not be flooded out. Chair Kocan wanted to hear who would be responsible if these homeowners were flooded out. Someone needs to be responsible, so that these people can get relief.

Chair Kocan said that she was told that no definitive answer could be given about basements until each plan comes forward.

Chair Kocan said this plan was so sensitive, that it should come back to the Planning Commission for final. It would not be a Public Hearing. It would give the residents the opportunity to see that everything has been done correctly. This would be helpful.

Chair Kocan reiterated that the viability of the soils in the area was important to her. This issue was not just pertaining to the upland areas. She trusted the City’s Engineer, but she did not believe that accurate readings could be taken with the lake situation.

Chair Kocan said she believed the motion would address the sidewalk waiver for the one side of the road. She said that this request made sense, because it could impact the wetlands and woodlands. Chair Kocan said that the waiver for the Meadowbrook Road sidewalk was a tough request. She thought there should be a sidewalk somewhere. She was told that the bridge construction would include a five-foot sidewalk on the east side of the road, and an eight-foot sidewalk on the west side of the road. The Master Plan shows the sidewalk on the west side of the road. Chair Kocan said she would defer to the Master Plan, although she knew there were many problems with getting a sidewalk all the way. Orchard Hills West is putting in a sidewalk between Meadowbrook Lake Subdvisivion and Mallott Drive. There will be some sidewalk between Nine and Ten Mile.

Member Lipski stated that he felt the issues had been adequately addressed.

Member Sprague said this was a difficult review. If the City had a legal basis for leaving the land as is, it would proceed in that fashion. However, this land owner has the right to develop the land. Member Sprague said that there must be follow-up regarding on the water levels. He asked if the Planning Commission could require the lake levels to return to normal before the soil borings were completed. Mr. Gillam said if the soil borings aren’t required for Preliminary Site Plan approval, his impression was that this would be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan approval. That said, the Planning Commission could address the issue at that time.

Member Sprague said that the current condition is not a true reflection of the true conditions. He thought it made more sense to wait for the borings until the area has returned to normal. Mr. Gillam said that if the issue isn’t directly relevant to the Preliminary Site Plan, than it could not be used to delay the Preliminary Site Plan approval. The issue could be addressed when the plan comes back for Final Site Plan. Mr. Croy stated that this issue can very easily be handled at Final Site Plan. Member Sprague said that the soil borings will not reflect the true condition of the area. Mr. Croy said that it is not the lake level that is important, it is the ground elevation adjacent to the lake. There is potential for the rise and fall of the lake to have some effect on the soil borings, and Mr. Croy said he would share this Applicant’s borings with someone experienced in understanding them. There are granular soils that will function regardless of whether there is or isn’t water. A saturated condition may not necessarily be a detriment to the road base. If the soils are such that they aren’t affected by ground water, Mr. Croy said there would not be a need to put any further conditions on the Applicant. If the soils include peat or something that could be affected by the water elevation, the reviewing consultant will then stipulate whatever restrictions he feels necessary.

Member Sprague asked if the City will evaluate the plan as though the lake were full, if the soils indicate that they are affected by water. Mr. Croy said if the soils can’t adequately handle water, the City might find that this is an indication to wait for normal water levels. This decision would require a much more in-depth analysis. Member Sprague asked at what point the analysis stops and the Applicant is told he can’t go forward. Mr. Croy said this decision is made on a case-by-case basis, and would depend on the variables. If it gets to the point there is a great question on whether the soils can handle it, then the reviewer will say that the City doesn’t want the road built and the Applicant will have to wait. Member Sprague recapitulated that there is not basis at the Preliminary Site Plan level to stop this plan from moving forward, as it relates to soil borings. However, when this plan comes back to the Planning Commission for Final Site Plan, this issue can be re-addressed. Mr. Gillam agreed.

Chair Kocan said that it seemed out of sequence to her, that the Applicant would not be told now to wait to take the borings. She thought it was practical to tell the Applicant this information now. Mr. Gillam said he could not answer an engineering question. He said that the Planning Commission has made clear to Mr. Roskelly that if there is a relationship between the level of Meadowbrook Lake and the soil borings, the Planning Commission has concerns. At this point in time, he thought that Chair Kocan was putting the cart before the horse.

Member Sprague thanked Mr. Croy for his efforts.

Member Lipski asked whether there is, in fact, a correlation between the lake level and the soil borings. Member Lipski said that further, a statistical correlation does not mean causation. The City doesn’t even know if the changes in the flow of the water in the new development, and the type of the soil that is there, is somehow even related to the lake. The City doesn’t know if the borings will have a likelihood of proving a change based on that lake level. The City doesn’t even know if the lake levels will skew the borings. He was concerned that the City was spinning its wheels over something that isn’t necessarily going to change as a result of the lake level. Mr. Croy said that Member Lipski made valid points. The City does not know the true relationship between the lake level and the soil borings. From his schooling experience, if the water is drawn down, it could affect the area soils, and when the water is brought back, it could take minutes or years for the soils to react to the water’s return. It would serve no purpose to ask the Applicant to wait because of the variable of the ground water table elevation. The concern is more accurately described as understanding what soils are present. Soil borings taken at any time will give that information.

Member Lipski asked if the soil boring samples are taken randomly to determine what is happening in the area and whether it was possible to tap into an aquifer unrelated to the lake. Mr. Croy said that the high ground may only be hydraulically connected to Ingersol Creek to the north. There could be a clay or rock seam south of this development. Without performing a swiss cheese sampling of this site, the City wouldn’t know that for sure. The soil boring could hit a perched aquifer that is only four feet below the surface and has no connection to the lake. It could be directly connected to the lake. If the area is entirely sand, chances are the area is connected with similar water levels. There are two water bodies on both sides and there are a lot of variables. Mr. Croy said he could not speak of the relationship at this time. The initial Final Site Plan review may tell the City all it needs to know.

Mr. Roskelly said that approximately fourteen years ago eight-foot soil borings were taken on the property. The ground is a yellow clay with little or no moisture. He said this indicates that it wouldn’t matter when the soil borings were taken. The grade of the Meadowbrook Lake is two or three feet lower anyway. Mr. Roskelly said that he would be taking new soil borings now. He would not expect much change between to two sets of borings. There is very little black dirt. There is compacted clay. There is very little, if any, moisture.

Member Avdoulos said he doubted everyone knew what a soil boring was. He said the Applicant would core a hole into the ground. It tells the type of soil, it tells the capacity of the soil, and it gives an indication of water level. It can act as a history of where there has been water. If the capacity is determined to be lacking, the site can be engineered to take the weight. If the City is looking at the soil borings for water levels, that is one thing. The borings will determine if the land can accommodate the road. They will determine whether the homes can have basements. If the borings indicate the top is sandy brown clay and the next level is hard brown clay, twenty feet away there may be twenty feet of sand and some clay. There may be the right capacity to build a road or a house, but the big indicator will be the water level, to see if basements can be built. Member Avdoulos agreed that the information must be provided, but what the information tells and what the Applicant can do are two different things. The borings could give enough information to allow a road, but have nothing to do with the water level. Member Avdoulos was concerned initially about basements and sump pumps. He was also concerned because he did not know who could provide a guarantee that the area around this site doesn’t get flooded.

Mr. Croy said that no guarantee can be given that these homes won’t be flooded. They are built in the floodplain. By definition, these homes will be inundated with flood waters periodically. Their landscaping will be affected and their sump pumps will probably run more often than usual. Historically these homes have flooded and in the future they will.

Member Avdoulos said this is typical of floodplains. He asked if the guarantee can’t be made because FEMA is a national and state agency. Mr. Croy responded that he did not know who would be willing to make a guarantee. The City is basing their decisions on the best information they have. Percolation is done and the City has to make decisions based on the best information on the table.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Cassis:

Member Sprague asked how the Planning Commission should deal with the funding of the sidewalks being placed in a reserve fund. Mr. Schmitt responded that the motion does not give the Applicant the ability to move forward under that scenario. The motion states that the Applicant must put the sidewalk in, and he did not know whether the Planning Commission can take away the right to appeal. The applicant should be allowed to request a waiver, and then, City Council can ask the Applicant to pay fees in lieu of providing the sidewalk. Also, Mr. Schmitt confirmed with Member Pehrson that when he said, "…no building lots encroaching on the buffer" he really meant, "no building envelopes."

Member Pehrson said that he wanted a sidewalk on Meadowbrook Road. He thought that if the City took the fee in lieu of the sidewalk, the City would come up short. Member Pehrson said that if this sidewalk doesn’t go in there will be a sidewalk deficit that will have to be addressed someday. He would prefer to make the Applicant responsible for the sidewalk. Chair Kocan asked if the language should be, "Inclusion of a Meadowbrook Road sidewalk on the Final Site Plan submittal or City Council Waiver." Mr. Gillam said that from his perspective, whether the Planning Commission stipulates the sidewalk requirement or provision for the Applicant seek a waiver, the Applicant has the ability to go City Council regardless. He suggested that if the intent is to require the sidewalk, then the motion should state that. The language was upgraded to, "Inclusion of a Meadowbrook Road sidewalk on the Final Site Plan submittal as desired by the Planning Commission." Member Pehrson and Member Cassis agreed.

The issue of soil borings was discussed. Mr. Schmitt instructed the Planning Commission that in terms of the condition, it would be more appropriate to attach the condition here because the road is directly related to the site plan, as opposed to the Conservation Easement, which is directly related to the Wetland Permit. The road is a site plan issue.

Chair Kocan asked if Member Pehrson would add the stipulation, "The timing of the boring be delayed until the dredging of Meadowbrook Lake has been completed and the lake level has returned to an acceptable level." Member Pehrson did not know if the City has an established level of hydrological test that says that it is "X" as compared to one month, two month, 50% of the lake, 75% of the lake. He did not know if the Planning Commission could draw that conclusion. Mr. Gillam had the same concerns. He did not know if it was clear at this point in time that there is a relationship between the two. He thought this was an issue that can be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. In terms of trying to condition Preliminary Site Plan approval on the timing of the soil borings has no basis. Member Pehrson said he would not mind adding, "At the time of Final Site Plan submittal, soil boring information is available for review." Member Pehrson said he also didn’t know what kind of conclusions they would be able to formulate, just as they are sitting here today, the lake is not going to be filled back up.

Ms. McBeth said that the Applicant had older soil borings, and she suggested that the Applicant be asked to submit those for a baseline comparison. Member Pehrson asked if there were some means or method by which the City can make a better, informed decision when comparing these borings. Mr. Croy said that the borings may be dated but they are not necessarily outdated. A very reputable firm did those soil borings, and the City could involve them, as well as asking for the input of a geo-technical engineer. The City can even determine historic water levels by a dry soil boring. These two borings could be reviewed. The expense of this review would be at the Applicant’s expense. Member Pehrson confirmed that the City could reach a qualified firm to assist in this review. Mr. Croy responded that the first borings were performed by a Farmington Hills firm. Member Pehrson wished to add, "Current and 16-year-old soil borings being submitted for comparison at the time of Final Site Plan submittal." Member Pehrson would like these soil borings reviewed.

Member Cassis asked Chair Kocan why she wanted those borings. Chair Kocan said she wasn’t sure why, but she didn’t think there was an engineer present at the meeting who could discern what water does. She said she wanted the borings for her own peace piece of mind and for the residents to the north, south and those who are around the property. She was concerned because the current borings will be taken when the area is not in its normal state. Member Cassis asked whether she wanted the information for the proposed ten homes, and she said no. She said that the Planning Commission can’t make a decision about their basements right now. She was concerned about those homes, and she said that the Applicant might change his mind about developing this land if he finds out he can’t build basements. Member Cassis said he was sure that if the Applicant digs a basement hole and finds water, he is not going to be able to sell that lot.

Chair Kocan said she wanted it on the record that a house on Meadowbrook Road was originally built with a basement and then the builder was told to fill the basement with rock, which he did. Six months later the builder was told he could have a basement, and that the City made a mistake. Chair Kocan hoped that Mr. Roskelly looked at this issue very hard. If the homes are at 845 and the floodplain is 840, the basement can only be four feet.

Chair Kocan wanted to find out if the soils are stable. If the telephone poles are beginning to lean and the road starts to shift, that impacts the people to the north and to the south. Member Cassis agreed to the language. Mr. Schmitt read the motion back, and Chair Kocan confirmed with Member Pehrson that he did not want to add a stipulation that the lake had to return to normal levels. Member Pehrson said he did not want to add that language.

ROLL CALL VOTE ON VILLAGEWOOD LAKE CONDOMINIUMS, SP04-51A, PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN MOTION MADE BY MEMBER PEHRSON AND SECONDED BY MEMBER CASSIS:

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Avdoulos:

Chair Kocan said that the FEMA verification is required at the time of Final Site Plan submittal, but she still wanted it to be made part of the motion. She asked that, "FEMA verification that no development is proposed in the floodplain." She also asked that, "No fill in the floodplain other than for utilities" be added to the motion. She also asked that, "No building footprints in the wetland buffer" be added to the motion. Member Avdoulos confirmed that these items are all found in the reviews. The maker and the seconder of the motion agreed to the additional language.

Member Cassis asked to put comments on the record, although they did not pertain to this motion. He said that he had tried to reach a compromise. He said he noticed that the neighbors were moving into groups and discussing this and he thought that was healthy. Member Cassis said that Mr. Roskelly was an honorable man who would be reasonable. Member Cassis said that Mr. Roskelly would not likely begin construction for at least six months. He told the residents to come up with a solution and bring it to Mr. Roskelly. Otherwise, Member Cassis said the Planning Commission has put restrictions on the plan that will result in the highest of levels.

ROLL CALL VOTE ON VILLAGEWOOD LAKE CONDOMINIUMS, SP04-51A, WETLAND PERMIT MOTION MADE BY MEMBER PEHRSON AND SECONDED BY MEMBER AVDOULOS:

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Avdoulos:

ROLL CALL VOTE ON VILLAGEWOOD LAKE CONDOMINIUMS, SP04-51A, WOODLAND PERMIT MOTION MADE BY MEMBER PEHRSON AND SECONDED BY MEMBER AVDOULOS:

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

ROLL CALL VOTE ON VILLAGEWOOD LAKE CONDOMINIUMS, SP04-51A, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN MOTION MADE BY MEMBER PEHRSON AND SECONDED BY MEMBER GUTMAN:

Moved by Member Sprague, seconded by Member Pehrson:

ROLL CALL VOTE ON VILLAGEWOOD LAKE CONDOMINIUMS, SP04-51A, MNRTF MOTION MADE BY MEMBER SPRAGUE AND SECONDED BY MEMBER PEHRSON:

Chair Kocan called for a break at 10:51 p.m.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Robert Rybicki for possible recommendation to City Council for rezoning property in Section 27, south of Ten Mile, west of Novi Road from R-4, One Family Residential, to OS-1, Office Service District. The subject property is 1.0 acre.

Planner Tim Schmitt located the property on an aerial map. The property is currently zoned R-4 and is located on the west side of Novi Road, to the south of Arena Drive. To the south and west is Arrowon Pines Condominium complex and is zoned R-4. To the east across the road are River Oaks Apartments, zoned RM-1. To the north are two vacant single family properties zoned R-4, which are the subject of the next rezoning request, 18.652.

Mr. Schmitt said that this area was amended on the recent Master Plan to change the designation from Single Family Residential to Office. This rezoning request is for OS-1. Arrowon Pines is master planned for Single Family Residential and River Oaks is master planned for Multiple Family.

There are no wetlands on the property, and the woodland map indicated there are small amounts of regulated woods on the far west of the subject property. Both of these items will be further addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

The water main is available directly adjacent to the property. The sanitary sewer stub is located to the south of Arrowon Pines. The request to rezone 50-22-27-200-041 from R-4 to OS-1 is for one acre. It currently has a single family home on the site. The owner of the site has given his permission for this property to be rezoned. The Planning Department recommends approval of this request. First and foremost, it is in compliance with the Master Plan for Land Use. It meets the intent of redeveloping the few remaining properties along Novi Road with more appropriate uses and will provide a positive transition between the existing residential and Novi Road in the front.

Mr. Schmitt said that this Applicant is working somewhat in concert with the Applicant seeking the 18.652 rezoning. The rezonings will provide a certain amount of coordination that the City would not otherwise expect. The Planning Department has no concerns about the Applicant meeting the Ordinance requirements. This one acre property is relatively square. This property is the clear natural break in the Novi Road corridor. To the north, there are the Hampton Woods development, a daycare center, and another small office development. To the south are Arrowon Pines, church and Weston Court Estates. OS-1 is the most appropriate zoning because the intent of this district is very clear. It is designed to accommodate uses such as offices, banks, human care and personal services. It serves as a transitional district between residential and commercial districts, and between residential and a major thoroughfare. The OS-1 would have this effect on this property.

Mr. Schmitt said that the Master Plan indicates that the residential density in the area is 3.3 units per acre. This is roughly the density of Arrowon Pines. This is the current density of this property. That designation was in place prior to the 1988 Master Plan as well.

Mr. Schmitt said that the most obvious OS-1 uses are general and medical offices. Also allowed would be a bank or personal service establishment. As a Special Land Use, a mortuary or daycare would be allowed. The size of the property would preclude many things, such as a hospital or an assisted living facility. Under R-4, single family homes, home occupations, parks and daycares are permitted. As a Special Land Use, churches, schools and daycares would be permitted.

Mr. Schmitt said that the Engineering Review indicates there is adequate capacity relating to the utilities. The current Novi Road construction is north of this property, and there are no plans to continue that construction south of Arena Drive.

The Traffic Review provided trip comparisons and Mr. Schmitt noted that the numbers assume a 15,300 square foot office building. That likely represents both of these rezoning requests, as Mr. Schmitt said a building of that magnitude would not fit on a one-acre parcel.

Terry Sever, 34436 Beechwood, addressed the Planning Commission. He said that the president of the Arrowon Pine Subdivision (Mr. Carlson) was present at the meeting, and Mr. Sever wished to comment on the very nice job Mr. Carlson has done in speaking with his residents. He appreciated the many residents who came to this meeting.

Mr. Sever watched the City go through the Master Plan process. He waited to see what was going to happen with this corridor. In terms of transition, Mr. Sever agreed that this land is the natural cut-off between districts. He thought there was some commercial use closer to Ten Mile that is also master planned for Office. On the other side of Novi Road, Mr. Sever said there is significant Office planned, as well as apartments.

Mr. Sever said that interestingly, the surrounding development has adversely impacted the subject property, although it will be those residents who will likely express themselves this evening, that this proposed rezoning will adversely affect their properties. The subject property has a home; next there is one-acre lot that has a house and is owned by Mr. Harteshorne. There are two one acre parcels. The adjacent parcel also has a house on it that sits back. The house next to Arrowon Pines is in the right-of-way. The County has already determined that at some point in time the house has to come down.

Mr. Sever pointed to the Arrowon Pines property and stated that much of that land is in its natural state and acts as a buffer to these properties. On the property going north, there are three or four acres of designated wetlands. He said that these properties are under contract to these dentists, who are already located elsewhere in the area. They are both specialists. Their combined square footage will likely be less than 15,000 square feet. The traffic pattern shown in the study was for typical office use. These dentists will probably have two patients per hour. One dentist is an oral surgeon and the other is an endodontist. They are specialists and they will be occupying a good portion of their buildings.

Mr. Sever showed a picture of what the two Applicants are looking at providing on the site. They plan to take effort in designing their buildings. They will encourage input from Arrowon Pines residents.

Chair Kocan opened the floor for comment on this parcel, and told the audience they could also comment on the second dentist rezoning if they would like:

Mr. Sever said that the Master Plan was reviewed all of 2004 and was noticed in the paper on several occasions. The Applicants will be willing to work on an acceptable lighting plan. They don’t think that there should be access into the subdivision from these businesses either. The berm can be considered, and the Applicants are willing to do whatever is best, though he noted that a natural buffer is already in place.

Member Sprague read the written comments into the record:

Susan Benton, 43510 Algonquin: Concerned about the tree buffer and the traffic on Novi Road.

Lucy Wayne, 43850 Algonquin: Concerned about the traffic.

Andreas Hogh, 43481 Algonquin: Concerned about traffic, access into Arrowon Pines, decreased home value and future of the trees.

Stephen Hudson, 43450 Algonquin: Objected to the plan.

Kenneth Radtke, 43770 Algonquin: Objected for traffic reasons.

James Rocoff, 43690 Algonquin: Objected to commercial in residential setting.

Ruth Leonovich, 43471 Algonquin: Objected for traffic reasons. She said the area was residential in nature.

Greg Hatcher, 43511 Algonquin: Objected because this type of zoning should be north of Arena Drive.

Yasuo Fujita, 43530 Algonquin: Objected because the area is residential.

Robert Gutzeit, 43750 Algonquin: Objected because the area is residential.

Ted Styke, 43501 Algonquin: Objected because of its effect on property values. He thought the area was too commercial already.

Winifred Lezowski, 43540 Algonquin: Objected because it could affect property values.

Eileen Long, 43451 Algonquin: Objected because of traffic problems (Letter not returned).

Jeanette Spitler, 43500 Algonquin: Objected because she did not want trees disturbed. The plan could affect her property value. The traffic is already bad on Novi Road. There is a lot of vacant office space in Novi already. This is a residential area. She did not want these businesses to have access into their subdivision. (Letter not read at meeting).

Terri Guibord, 43490 Algonquin: Objected because of the traffic and the rezoning’s affect on her property value. There is vacant office space already in Novi. She did not want these businesses to have access to their subdivision, and would like that road landscaped at the developer’s expense. She was concerned about the trees being removed and the loss of noise attenuation. (Letter not read at meeting).

Nils Karlson, 43531 Algonquin: Objected for its proximity to their condos, traffic issues and loss of natural setting. (Writer spoke in person; letter not read at meeting).

Harold Rudolph: 43800 Algonquin: Objected for traffic reasons. The area is residential. He did not want more commercial. (Writer spoke in person; letter not read at meeting).

Chair Kocan closed the Public Hearing.

Member Pehrson appreciated and thanked the residents for their interest in this project. He said that the Planning Commission is only looking at the rezoning of the property this evening, not an actual site plan. He said that they look at things like berms and lighting plans when there might be an adjacent use issue with a rezoning.

Member Pehrson said he had concerns with the traffic. He asked Mr. Schmitt to comment. He responded that Birchler Arroyo’s method for their traffic study was to provide a traffic impact statement for all three parcels combined. Their trip generation comparison numbers on page five is based on 15,300 square feet – which constitutes the maximum building size for both properties combined. He said that the number seemed a little high, but until the plans are actually laid out he couldn’t be too sure. For one acre, a fair assumption would be to take one-third of the traffic number, or roughly 150-160 trips per day, versus 78 that could be expected by six homes.

Member Pehrson asked if any kind of traffic light could be considered. Mr. Schmitt said that he did not believe there was a line item for something of this nature in the CIP, and he felt that if there was going to be an additional light it would be provided at the Arrowon Pines/River Oaks West entrance.

Member Pehrson said that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee reviewed this request on May 16, 2005 and gave its positive recommendation. The entire Master Plan process is open to the public. People are invited to come and make their opinions known. He said that this property is a transition piece that is plausible for a change to RM-1 or OS. This has also been done along Haggerty Road.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

Member Sprague asked whether the buffering between this property and Arrowon Pines could be discussed briefly for the benefit of the residents, even though this was only the rezoning request. He asked that the Lighting Ordinance be explained so that the residents understand how it protects them.

Landscape Architect Lance Shipman responded that whenever an office-type use is adjacent to residential, there is a requirement in the Ordinance for a 4.5-6 foot berm with landscape that meets certain opacity requirements. This provides a visual screen between the two properties. Those issues will be looked at when the Preliminary Site Plan is submitted. The Lighting Ordinance restricts the lightcast and ensures that the light does not shine on other properties. The lights must be cast downward or interior to the site. There is a whole Ordinance process that the lighting must go through.

Member Sprague asked for comment on the Novi Road widening. Civil Engineer Ben Croy responded that this widening is not in the current CIP budget up through 2009-2010. Chair Kocan thought that it was slated for 2005 or 2006, but it was clarified that the widening scheduled is between Ten Mile and Grand River.

Member Sprague said that this area was master planned and would now accommodate this rezoning request. This is a transitional area, and whether the break should be here or north of the creek is a good question. Member Sprague has lived in the neighboring apartments and is aware of the traffic in that area. He would hate to see more traffic on Novi Road. The Planning Commission’s choice is granting this request or leaving the property as is. It is zoned for R-4 and the question would become, "What is going to go up on this property?" There is room for up to six homes on the property, which does not seem to be a good alternative to Member Sprague. He supported the motion.

Member Avdoulos explained the Master Plan process. He said it was a book that contains all of the issues and existing conditions, community forecasts and a map called "Future Land Use." The Master Plan and Zoning Committee has been reviewing the Master Plan for the past two years, and that is where many of the decisions have come from – what areas should be zoned as what? The decisions are based on looking at densities and uses. Over the course of the past couple of years, there have been meetings along the way to get community input on which direction people would like to see the City go. The variations can be seen between the 1999 Plan and the 2004 Plan. The City gets reviewed section by section. Everything is looked at objectively, such as traffic. The Master Plan has a map of present traffic signals and future traffic signals. Traffic signals have to relegate the flow of traffic. There is a light at Arena Drive. This area may need one too; when the Master Plan and Zoning Committee begins their review for the next Master Plan update, that might be something they include in their review. The bike and pedestrian paths are in the Master Plan. The sidewalks are in the Plan. The build-out projections and everything that the City tries to look at is consolidated and put into the Plan. It is available for review at the City. The book and CD version are available for purchase. It can be reviewed on the City’s website.

Member Avdoulos said that in this case, the Master Plan and Zoning Committee reviewed the area. He confirmed that the one driveway on the Arrowon site was probably for possible future access to the site to the north. Member Avdoulos asked if that drive would be removed. Mr. Schmitt said that he would look at it for possible removal when the plans come in, because the City doesn’t necessarily like to provide access points between commercial/office and residential. Then Mr. Schmitt said that the road may have also been provided because it was Arrowon Pines’ secondary access. Member Avdoulos said that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee has reviewed this request along with their concept plan, and he agreed with its transitional nature and therefore supported the motion.

Member Cassis reiterated that this rezoning request is just a confirmation of the discussions that have been occurring for the past two years. He did acknowledge that most people don’t read the newspaper and see the Public Hearing notices, so these residents may not have been aware of the Master Plan meetings held in the past two years. Member Cassis said that the Planning Commission’s hands are tied at this table, because to reverse themselves from the position held during the Master Plan update process would put them in a difficult position.

Member Cassis said that if this property didn’t become OS-1, some developer would have assembled all of these lots and put in condos. Member Cassis remembered that the property upon which Arrowon Pines sits was not zoned for condos, but the developer was successful in developing the land as such. He asked the Arrowon residents whether they would prefer 20-25 condos next to them. He was just providing some historical perspective; he understood that the City could not go back and reverse itself. He felt that OS-1 places a lot of restrictions on the property, especially when the OS-1 abuts residential.

Member Cassis may have agreed with the Arrowon residents that the more natural transitional line was at the Montessori school, but he was not on the Master Plan and Zoning Committee at the time that decision was made. He did not think this plan was as disastrous as it could have been; the land could have been proposed for a lot of condos. He did not think that the Planning Commission has any other choices at the table. He stated that when the plans return for Preliminary Site Plan approval, the Planning Commission would ensure that the Ordinance was enforced. He thought the Applicants seemed to be willing to incorporate the requests of the Arrowon Pines residents.

Chair Kocan said that the Novi Road Corridor Plan was an in-depth look at the area, and she suspected that this area was recommended for office through that Novi Road Corridor Plan. The Master Plan and Zoning Committee gets its direction from many places. She said that the Planning Commission looked again at this area during the Master Plan update.

Chair Kocan asked what a one-acre site would accommodate for an office. The response was that a small office building would fit, as long as the Applicant did not try to overbuild the site. The Planning Commission has certain control over that. A typical home is 3,000 square feet. The height restriction in OS-1 is thirty feet, which is less than what a house can be (35 feet). The Master Plan is a living document and it behooves the Planning Commission to follow their Master Plan unless there are significant changes to substantiate a change. She supported the motion.

Chair Kocan also said that she did not want to landlock the residents who are between the daycare center and these properties. From the depth of these properties, the request makes sense. She said that office is one of the least intrusive uses to put next to residential. She told the audience that City Council makes the final decision on this request.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Dr. Arvind Gulati for possible recommendation to City Council for rezoning property in Section 27, south of Ten Mile and west of Novi Road from R-4, One Family Residential, to OS-1, Office Service, District. The subject property is approximately 1.89 acres.

Planner Tim Schmitt told the Planning Commission that the presentation on this property was virtually identical for the request just reviewed. He offered to answer any questions the Planning Commission might have.

Mr. Sever asked to read into the record the parcel identifications for this rezoning request, since there are actually two parcels for consideration. The numbers are 50-22-27-200-037 and 50-22-27-200-038. Mr. Schmitt said that his paperwork cites 50-22-27-200-014 and 50-22-27-200-040.

Mr. Sever said that he would accept those tax identification numbers, as he assumed the numbers must have been updated. His point was he wanted to ensure that there were two parcels in this request.

Chair Kocan confirmed with the Applicant that the description of these parcels is the land directly north of the parcel that was just presented. Mr. Sever then agreed with the parcel numbers stated by Mr. Schmitt.

Chair Kocan opened the floor for public comment:

Gloria Burnside, 43610 Windingo Court: Took exception to the comment that there is no other recourse for the Planning Commission to take, if a request is consistent with the Master Plan. She sat at the meeting for five hours thinking that the Planning Commission members would hear these requests with open minds. She asked the Planning Commission to comment on why they believed that they did not have a choice. Chair Kocan responded immediately, that the Master Plan is a living document and that it behooves the Planning Commission to follow it; the emphasis was on the word behooves.

Member Sprague had correspondence to share:

Maxine Garavaglia, 43770 Algonquin: Objected because of its proximity to her subdivision, its possible effect on her home’s value, traffic problems and it was visually unacceptable.

Other correspondence received but not read into the record for duplicity reasons (refer to rezoning request 18.651):

Andreas Hogh, 43481 Algonquin: Concerned about traffic, access into Arrowon Pines, decreased home value and future of the trees.

Nils Karlson, 43531 Algonquin: Objected for its proximity to their condos, traffic issues and loss of natural setting.

James Rocoff, 43690 Algonquin: Objected to commercial in residential setting.

Stephen Hudson, 43450 Algonquin: Objected to the plan.

Ruth Leonovich, 43471 Algonquin: Objected for traffic reasons. She said the area was residential in nature.

Robert Gutzeit, 43750 Algonquin: Objected because the area is residential.

Chair Kocan closed the Public Hearing and turned the matter over to the Planning Commission.

Member Pehrson said the Planning Commission can make a motion to recommend approval or denial of this request; they can also recommend a different zoning. Some of the Planning Commission members have referred to the Master Plan because it is a document upon which they have spent many hours. They take great care in not making snap judgments or judgments based on anything but facts. They consider the Master Plan a guideline that helps them address the needs of the City. There are hours spent on reviewing rezoning requests. There were hours spent on the Master Plan review. He said that not everyone is going to agree with the decisions made, but the Planning Commission does try to make the best decisions for the City.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Sprague:

Member Sprague echoed the comments made by Member Pehrson. The Master Plan update took well over two years. This request was also reviewed first by the Master Plan and Zoning Committee. It is not a quick decision. It is thought out. The Planning Commission members could change their minds, but given the Novi Road Corridor Study, the Master Plan and the discussion at the Master Plan and Zoning Committee meeting, there has to be a transition along Novi Road and this is the location where the Planning Commission drew that line.

Member Avdoulos said that when the Planning Commission looks at these zoning districts, they try to consider the best option for the transitional areas. OS-1 allows one-story buildings, which matches up with the residential character. At some point there has to be a transitional property. Wetland and woodland maps were also considered. Across from Arrowon, to the north, the area is entirely wetlands, which means the area can’t get developed. During the Master Plan review, these parcels were considered. There has to be a break somewhere. The best scenario would be that the parcels were combined with only one driveway. Those are the things that are considered during the review process. Sometimes it seems like a decision is callous, but the Planning Commission is concerned. After going through all of the section reviews, and going through all of the review sessions, a decision is made based on all of the information. He did not want anyone disappointed, but it is difficult to satisfy 100% of the time.

Member Avdoulos said that when this request came through, he paid attention to some one-story office buildings that abut residential on one of his traveling routes; he said the buildings are low-line and well landscaped. This concept is not as obtrusive as one might think. He always tries to compare these requests to others that he sees in the communities; if he sees that an option makes sense, he tries to replicate it here.

Member Cassis said that the Planning Commission’s hands were tied because the Master Plan process goes through the Master Plan and Zoning Committee, the Planning Commission and the City Council. The process continues for over two years. On two different occasions Member Cassis has objected to requests that were consistent with the Master Plan. On both occasions the City Council overrode the Planning Commission’s recommendation. Once this Master Plan update process goes through City Council, it says to the owner that heretofore his property has been changed. Therefore, make any preparations or future plans to go in that direction. Member Cassis believed that the City would have a legal problem if a request that met the Master Plan intent was not recommended for approval.

Mr. Gillam thought that the statement was correct. There is a lot of work put into the Master Plan. If a rezoning decision is reviewed by a court, the primary document – or source of authority – the court is going to look at is the Master Plan. The review breaks both ways. If the request is consistent with the Master Plan, it is generally presumed to be valid. If the request is at odds with the Master Plan, there has to be some justification above and beyond the Master Plan for the fact that the plan does not follow. When rezonings are approved that are at odds with the City’s Master Plan, it chips away at the force that the Master Plan carries. The bottom line is, the City is better off making decisions that agree with the Master Plan. It maintains the force and effectiveness of the Master Plan as a whole.

Member Cassis said that Mr. Gillam’s explanation also explained his comment. He sympathized with the residents, and his opinion would have been to make the transition at the Montessori school. But now he feels he must respect the work put into the Master Plan.

Chair Kocan said that the Master Plan looks at the distribution of the zoning districts. It is not unusual for the City to get its hands tied through legal situations or whatever, that result in changes in zoning. This could result in areas having residential that weren’t planned for residential. There must be a distribution of zonings to keep the City financially sound. This consideration is also given during the review process.

Chair Kocan said that spot zoning occurs when one parcel is completely surrounded by something else. This request is consistent with what already exists along Novi Road. Therefore she did not believe this was a spot zoning.

Chair Kocan said this was a recommendation to City Council. She encouraged the residents to attend the City Council and petition at that time as well.

Chair Kocan Called for a five minute break.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Singh IV Limited Partnership for a PRO, Planned Rezoning Overlay, and Zoning Map Amendment 18.605 for possible recommendation to City Council for rezoning of property located in Section 14, south of Twelve Mile Road and west of Meadowbrook Road from OST, Planned Office Service Technology, and RM-1, Low Density, Low Rise Multiple Family Residential to RM-2, High Density Multiple Family Residential District. The site is approximately 38.6 acres.

Site Location: West of Meadowbrook Road, South of Twelve Mile

Site Zoning: Northwest corner: RM-1; Remainder of Site: OST

Adjoining Zoning: North, South, & East: OST; West (across lake): RM-1 and RC

Site Use(s): Vacant Land

Adjoining Uses: North: Vacant Land & DMC rehabilitation Clinic; West: Waltonwood & Crescent Lake; South: Beechforest Office Park & ITC Transmission Lines; East: Several office buildings & vacant land along Meadowbrook Road

Proposed Use: 201 attached condominiums

Site Size: 38.621 acres

Plan Date: 10/01/01

The petitioner is requesting consideration of a Planned Rezoning Overlay, in conjunction with rezoning request 18.605. The PRO acts as a zoning map amendment, creating a "floating district" with a conceptual plan attached to the rezoning of the parcel. As such, the requests require a 15-day public hearing notice for the Planning Commission, which offers a recommendation to the City Council, who has the final approval of the PRO. As a part of the PRO, the underlying zoning is changed, in this case to RM-2, and the Applicant enters into a Memorandum of Understanding with the City, whereby the City and Applicant agree to any deviations to the applicable Ordinances and a conceptual plan for development for the site. After approval of the PRO Plan and Agreement, the Applicant will submit for Preliminary and Final Site Plan under the typical review procedures. The PRO runs with the land, so future owners, successors, or assignees are bound by the terms of the Agreement, absent modification by the City of Novi.

The parcel in question is located west of Meadowbrook Road, south of Twelve Mile, adjacent to Crescent Lake, in Section 14 of the City of Novi. The property consists of two different parcels totaling over 38 acres of wooded/wet land. The current zoning of the property is split, with RM-1, Low Density, Low Rise Multiple Family, zoning in the northwest corner of development adjacent to Waltonwood of Novi, and OST, Office Service Technology, for the remaining acreage around Crescent Lake and along Meadowbrook Road.

The rezoning request was heard by the Planning Commission on June 6 and August 1, 2001 and August 7, 2002. Ultimately, a negative recommendation for RM-2 zoning was sent to the City Council. On December 16, 2002, the City Council directed the City administration to begin work on a Development Agreement. On July 7, 2003, this Agreement was tabled by the City Council to allow additional time to finalize it. On February 23, 2004 City Council did not approve the proposal without a density cap. The project was brought back to the City Council on May 9, 2005, and the Applicant was directed to submit a Planned Rezoning Overlay for the project, to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and brought back to the City Council for action within 45 days.

The zoning on the site is currently OST, Office Service Technology. This designation was put in place through a City-initiated rezoning in May of 1998. Prior to this rezoning, the property was zoned RA, Residential Acreage, and RC, Regional Commercial. The RA zoned portions were former farm fields along Meadowbrook Road. The RC portion of the subject property was owned by Taubman and was part of the overall mall development and included the two properties directly adjacent to the lake. Also part of this rezoning request was a piece of property that was rezoned in April of 1994 as part of the Waltonwood development, but which was left out of the development of the Waltonwood property. Although specific site discussions did not occur in great depth regarding the viability of development on the of the subject property, it appears as though development there would be difficult. Singh chose not to purchase the property at the time - the reasoning according to Mr. Mike Kahm of Singh at the January 17, 1996 Planning Commission meeting, "…For a variety of reasons that particular piece of property was not continued within their ultimate purchase agreement with the Taubman Company, from both perspectives. The both agreed that portion of the property wasn’t viable any longer."

The property was included in the 1998 OST Study, to be rezoned as part of the Meadowbrook Road corridor. Although difficulties in developing the subject property were recognized, it was apparent that designating the property to something other than office would have an effect on the development of the OST properties in the corridor. Specifically, when adjacent to residential development, each of the frontage properties that have not developed will be required to provide a 4’6" berm (up to 6’) between themselves and the Singh project.

The Planned Rezoning Overlay process involves a PRO plan and specific PRO conditions in conjunction with a rezoning request. This process is almost identical to the Development Agreement process that the City followed previously. The difference is that the submittal requirements and the process are codified under the PRO Ordinance (Article 34). Within the process, which is completely voluntary by the Applicant, the Applicant and City Council can agree on a series of conditions to be included as part of the approval. The Planning Department, after reviewing the conceptual plan submitted for the properties in question, offers the following analysis.

Under Section 3402.D.1.c, deviations from the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance may be permitted by the City Council in the PRO Agreement. These deviations must be accompanied by a finding by the City Council that "each Zoning Ordinance provision sought to be deviated would, if the deviation were not granted, prohibit an enhancement of the development that would be in the public interest, and that approving the deviation would be consistent with the Master Plan and compatible with the surrounding areas." For each such deviation, City Council should make the above finding if they choose to include the items in the PRO Agreement.

The Applicant is required to submit a conceptual plan and a list of terms that they are willing to include with the PRO Agreement. To date, the Applicant has not submitted a narrative discussing the terms of the agreement. At this point, the only specific terms are those discussed at the previous City Council meeting. These are:

A limitation on the density for the site, capping the number of units at 201. This would provide a density of 6.43 dwelling units per acre, based on the wetlands information and boundary survey provided by the applicant on their 5/26/05 submittal.

A requirement that the development of the site be restricted to owner-occupied units, i.e. not apartment buildings, but condominiums.

The following are areas where the current Concept Plan does not appear to meet Ordinance requirements.

Setbacks (Some dimensions are unclear, due to a lack of indication of property boundaries on some sheets)

Building O does not meet minimum building setback provisions from the property line (75 feet required, approximately 70 feet proposed) (Section 2400)

Building O does not meet minimum building setback provisions from a lake (150 feet required, 112 feet proposed) (Section 2400(e)(1))

The rear access aisle behind building O does not meet the minimum setback provisions from a lake (150 feet required, 87 feet proposed) (Section 2400(e)(1))

Parking throughout the site violates Section 2400, footnote (e)(6), which requires a minimum of 20 feet of setback for any off-street parking from any right-of-way line, or in this case, a theoretical right-of-way due to the roads being private.

Many of the buildings have pavement proposed in the front and rear of the buildings. It appears to be for parking related purposes. It is possible that these buildings will violate footnote (e)(6) of Section 2400, which requires that no off-street parking shall be provided within 25 feet of a wall with windows or 8 feet to a wall without windows. (Section 2400(e)(6))

Roadway Design Standards

As currently designed the project does not comply with Section 2514 (Additional Road Design, Building Setback, and Parking Setback Requirements for One-Family Clustering Option, Two-Family Uses, Multiple-Family Uses, and Certain Non-Residential Uses and Developments). The main road through the development, considered a major drive due to its distance from a public road or intersection with another street, should not have parking directly abutting or backing into it.

Open Space (Calculations not provided)

No usable open space is identified on the plans, but the ordinance requires a minimum of 200 square feet per unit. Natural areas do not count towards this requirement. (Section 2400(f))

Sidewalks are lacking throughout the southern half of the development. (Section 2400(f)(7))

Building Configuration to Property Lines

The majority of the buildings are not configured at a 45-degree angle towards the property lines. (Section 2400(e(4))

There are a variety of other items inherent in the review of a multiple-family project. At the time of Preliminary Site Plan, further detail will be provided, allowing for the review of the following. After this detailed review, additional variances may be uncovered, based on the actual product being proposed.

The distance between the buildings appears to be appropriate, pending confirmation when building elevations are submitted.

Compliance with the City’s façade ordinance will be reviewed at the Preliminary Site Plan level.

Sizes of units and number of rooms will be confirmed when floor plans are submitted. Given the standards of the RM-2 district, it does not appear that there will be any concerns in meeting the requirements.

The amount of parking on the site appears to be very close to the minimum required. The actual calculations will be confirmed with the Preliminary Site Plan.

Applicant Burden Under PRO Ordinance

The Planned Rezoning Overlay ordinance requires the Applicant to make certain showings under the PRO ordinance that requirements and standards are met. Section 3402.D.2 states the following:

Approval of the application shall accomplish, among other things, and as determined in the discretion of the City Council, the integration of the proposed land development project with the characteristics of the project area, and result in an enhancement of the project area as compared to the existing zoning, and such enhancement would be unlikely to be achieved or would not be assured in the absence of the use of a Planned Rezoning Overlay.

Sufficient conditions shall be included on and in the PRO Plan and PRO Agreement on the basis of which the City Council concludes, in its discretion, that, as compared to the existing zoning and considering the site specific land use proposed by the applicant, it would be in the public interest to grant the Rezoning with Planned Rezoning Overlay; provided, in determining whether approval of a proposed application would be in the public interest, the benefits which would reasonably be expected to accrue from the proposal shall be balanced against, and be found to clearly outweigh the reasonably foreseeable detriments thereof, taking into consideration reasonably accepted planning, engineering, environmental and other principles, as presented to the City Council, following recommendation by the Planning Commission, and also taking into consideration the special knowledge and understanding of the City by the City Council and Planning Commission.

The Applicant should be prepared to discuss the above two items, especially in part a, where the Ordinance suggests that the enhancement under the PRO request would be unlikely to be achieved or would not be assured without utilizing the Planned Rezoning Overlay.

The following is a summary of the Public Hearing responses received by the Planning Department regarding the Uptown Park PRO Public Hearing. Additionally, several people spoke at the meeting when the floor was opened for public comment. There is no record of who spoke, but all speakers voiced their opposition to the plan.

Larwrence M. Malkowski, 43000 Twelve Oaks Crescent Drive: Objected for traffic reasons.

Courtney L. Malkowski, 43000 Twelve Oaks Crescent Drive: Objected for traffic reasons and concern for the natural features.

John Steele, 43100 Twelve Oaks Crescent Drive: Objected for aesthetics and environmental reasons.

Gail G. Osburn, 43050 Twelve Oaks Crescent Drive: Objected because of concern for natural features and loss of property value.

Dr. Sami Alam, 43050 Twelve Oaks Crescent Drive: Objected because of traffic, pollution of environment, destruction of natural habitat and loss of viewshed.

Geraldine Alam, 43050 Twelve Oaks Crescent Drive: Objected for strain on infrastructure, pollution, loss of natural habitat and traffic reasons.

David L. Greenwood, 43050 Twelve Oaks Crescent Drive: Objected to the plan and was concerned about the southerly leg of the subject property. He requested that further study be done.

Catherine A. Hoblock, 43050 Twelve Oaks Crescent Drive: Objected to high density multiple family.

Michael Hoblock, 43050 Twelve Oaks Crescent Drive: Objected because of the congestion.

David J. Chaundy, Management Agent for The Enclave Condominium Association: Provided a list of concerns brought forward by his residents. They include: Concern for the building standards; Height of buildings; The number and size of the buildings; Further pollutants in lake; Density; Traffic concerns; Concern for southerly property’s future use for RM-2; Lakefront and tree line; and loss of trees that act as sound barrier.

Fritz Homann, 43050 Twelve Oaks Crescent Drive: Objected because of loss of natural features and wildlife sanctuary. He requested that the Planning Commission require a more detailed plan. He thought the Concept Plan was uninspiring. He did not think that Singh provided a quality building at Waltonwood and was therefore concerned for this project. The trees on the south side of the lake act as a sound barrier.

Richard and Joyce Mittenthal, 43050 Twelve Oaks Crescent Drive: Objected for traffic reasons and concerned about losing the viewshed.

Molly Clinton-Steele: Objected for density, viewshed, and loss of privacy reasons.

Kim Paterson, JD Dinan Company, manager for 27421 Meadowbrook Road office: Objected because RM-2 could de-value their Office property, and the plan would increase traffic.

Chair Kocan closed the Public Hearing.

Member Sprague: Commissioner Sprague described the decision in front of the Planning Commission to be solely a consideration of the rezoning, contingent upon a PRO with only two limitations. The review was not a review of the site plan. The PRO contains two, and only two limitations: One for density at a maximum of 201 units and one that the units will be owner occupied condominiums. In every other respect, the proposed development would be required to comply with City Ordinance.

The crucial element of the rezoning is the proposed change from OST to Residential. The PRO is being used as a means to accomplish this within certain restrictions amenable to the developer. In order to qualify as a PRO there are findings that must be made. These include, as identified in the Planning Department memo on page 3, that each Ordinance provision sought to be deviated would, if the deviation were not granted,

Prohibit an enhancement of a development that would be in the Public’s interest

Be consistent with the Master Plan

Be compatible with the surrounding areas

That the benefits must be found to CLEARLY outweigh the foreseeable detriments.

Commissioner Sprague addressed each of the four points.

1. In regard to the proposal being in the Public’s Interest , Commissioner Sprague indicate that this relied on an assumption that a conversion from OST to Residential was in the public interest and this was, in his view, an erroneous assumption. Other measures of the public interest such as improvements in public safety, improved/enhanced public facilities and/or recreational opportunities, preservation of natural features beyond ordinance requirements or an improved financial position for the City were all to be considered, but none of which were met by this proposal.

2. The amendment request is clearly not in compliance with the current Master Plan

Commissioner Sprague stated that he believed that the compatibility with the surrounding areas was a subjective question and that it was compatible with some, but not with all. That this area marked a border area between two types of development and that it fit with either. Thus, while the request may be compatible with some of the surrounding area, it was no more compatible as residential than its current zoning as OST.

Commissioner Sprague did not see any evidence that there existed any benefits to the City for this change in zoning, and accordingly did not see any that any benefits would clearly outweigh any detriments.

Commissioner Sprague further reviewed his analysis of the Net Financial Impact prepared by the applicant, noting that among other significant items, that the applicant claimed a significant increase in the State Revenue Sharing revenues that would be attributable to this development. In his research and through discussions with City officials, it was clear that this was grossly overstated and that any increase in this amount due to this development would only be realized when the next census was taken, which is next scheduled in five years. During that period, the City would have to provide services to the development, but would not receive these funds from the State. Even before analyzing any other amounts, this missing revenue puts the proposed development in a less favorable position than the development of an OST project on this site.

In Summary, Commissioner Sprague related that the need he saw described in the proposal was a market driven economic need of the developer, not a need of the Public Interest for the City of Novi. He felt that this would have a negative impact on the Public Interest. He stated his concern that the residential base of the City continues to grow faster than the commercial base and that the build out of the OST properties was essential to the long term financial interest of the City. This continued growth in residential through increased density in existing residentially zoned zones properties, the increased increase capacity as properties like this were rezoned to residential and the current pace of development with residential growing faster than commercial was having a negative impact on the long term public interest of the residents of Novi. That to rezone OST to residential was bad planning and bad policy. That promoting an acceleration of residential development was also bad policy. Accordingly, he indicated that he would not support this request and urged a negative recommendation be made to City Council.

Member Avdoulos: I was on the fence with this project. Because of the residential development at the north end of the lake and that on the south, a residential development bordering the east side of the lake connecting the two could make sense. This would in essence create a large residential island between a mall development and land master planned for office. From Meadowbrook Road the sequence would be office, residential, lake then mall.

As master planned, office is running from Twelve Mile Road south. At the area in question, office would be located from Meadowbrook Road to the lake. Taking a look at the character of Twelve Mile and what it wants

to be, I think office would also be appropriate. The offices located on Meadowbrook along with more offices behind them could create a nice office park setting similar to what exists at areas on the west side of

Haggerty, north of Eight Mile and north of Twelve Mile. Plus, the current analysis for and by the City indicates that OST brings greater tax revenue.

The terrain of the site came into question with the developers feeling that this site would be too difficult for office construction because of the topographical challenges. This particular applicant is an expert at residential therefore it is only natural that they support something that they are good at doing. If an applicant specializing in office

construction came forth, they would tell you that the site is too difficult for anything other than office. I've seen many office buildings set into interesting topography, rising to the challenge, blending in with the environment and creating an exciting project. There are actually a few in Farmington Hills on Twelve Mile.

Locking in on the number of units is also a concern. An agreement will be made to a certain number and then everything will be done to achieve that number. Certain environmental things may need to be sacrificed or

many waivers may be necessary in order to accommodate their requirements. I think that a range is required to allow Council flexibility if it is felt that the site is too "crowded" or "overstressed".

My final conclusion on this was to support the Master Plan and keep the site designated as OST. I think residential should remain north of Twelve Mile. We have another development, Brooktown at Grand River and

Meadowbrook, which will be introducing more residential to the City and is located south of this area. I think that this would work best for the city.

Member Cassis: I directed a number of questions to Tim Schmitt, trying to understand the chronology of the history of this development through the Planning Commission and City Council. Tim did give his account of this history. I can’t recall how attorney Carson came into this discussion. I had called him to ask Carson questions. He gave a little different account of the chronology.

This information was provided by Mr. Carson:

On December 16, 2002 – the Application was submitted and the

Council debates. Another session Council agrees to 241 units – for sale, not apartments. This was the point insisted upon by then Mayor Clark; the rest of Council agreed.

On February 3, 2003 – a ninety day extension was given.

On April 21, 2003 – a sixty day extension was given.

On July 7, 2003 – City Council rejects the Agreement and tabled the plan.

On August 11, 2003 – a six month extension was granted.

In February 2004 – The plan was rejected for something regarding the density cap.

There were other meetings mentioned by Mr. Carson, which I couldn’t write down.

My input went along these lines – that it seems there were promises and motions passed by Council that okayed the 241 "for sale" scenario.

I did note that there is presently a number of multiple family projects in the area surrounding the pond. This scheme by the petitioner is consistent with the surrounding area – and that I can go along with the notion that this development will not be out of place – and rather OST would be surrounded by multiple. I acknowledged that the area was master planned OST. However, with the past action of the Council regarding this matter, if the plan is now rejected simply because of time lapse, this may hold us vulnerable.

Regarding the PRO – the benefit that this project would bring to the table is the capping of the number of units, and that the units would be for sale. The open space and sidewalk provisions are an advantage. The woodland and wetland treatments will be an advantage and will blend better with surrounding residential. The plan will bring in more predictable tax dollars to the City – stable tax dollars. This summary is given to the best of my recollection.

Chair Kocan: The Planning Commission never recommended this rezoning to the City Council during the previous reviews and I don't intend to change my position now. The City needs a balance of residential, commercial, industrial and office in order to maintain fiscal responsibility. I would require OST property to

be identified elsewhere in the City to compensate for this additional residential. I don't accept the rationale that property developed as residential is better than nothing. Vacant land pays for itself. There are costs associated with residential; there are increased requirements for city services. The fiscal analysis reiterates that we have plenty of multiples. While tax revenue may be more immediate with residential, in the long run OST brings greater tax revenue. The City has a "plan". We don't need to do something today to the detriment of tomorrow.

Rezoning now to residential impacts buffer requirements, as well as height and use restrictions of abutting properties. Those who purchased their properties along Meadowbrook Road made a considerable investment with the knowledge they were abutting OST property. The property could have/should have been consolidated with frontage properties along Meadowbrook Road to create a major entrance to a corporate park.

I find it very disappointing that there is the specification of the number of units. This is similar to the Links of Novi site plan, in that a pre-determined number of units were allowed without regard to layout on the property, wetland/woodland intrusion, impact of berm/obscuring wall removal, on street parking, distance between buildings, wetland fill and/or mitigation. In Links of Novi, there was the addition of a clubhouse which required numerous variances. If at least one home was removed, it would have fit better, but the developer was guaranteed a certain number of homes.

City Council and the attorneys need to understand how this can impact a site plan.

Should the City Council choose to implement this PRO, I would request the following stipulations: The PRO conceptual plan dated 5/26/05 is neither permanent nor final, but is subject to ordinance review for compliance

during Preliminary Site Plan review, specifically, useable open space, facade ordinance compliance, Section 2514 with regard to off-street parking, and the fire department's requirement regarding drives not exceeding 150' and emergency access. Singh should be responsible to berm the entire eastern boundary line abutting OST, unless woodland areas are at least 40' wide (the width of a 6' berm) and noise attenuation is not a problem. I

would request a conservation easement. They should remove or at least minimize outer perimeter impervious surface from around buildings to keep parking more central and allow greater woodland preservation. They should preserve more understory and secondary forest growth by rethinking proposed grades.

I also asked about the small parcel of property that borders the lake at the extreme south. There is no development proposed on this parcel at this time and I would expect that nothing would ever be developed there.

The City attorney stated that the PRO could always be amended.

Because this is part of the PRO agreement which stipulates a maximum of 201 units, I would consider it a breach of trust should the developer ever come back to the city with a proposal for more residential.

Moved by Member Sprague, seconded by Member Avdoulos:

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Sprague:

There were no Consent Agenda Removals.

There were no Matters for Discussion.

There were no Supplement Issues.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

The meeting adjourned at 2:26 a.m.

MON 06/13/05 CITY COUNCIL INTERVIEWS 7:00 PM

WED 06/15/05 PLANNING COMMISSION ROUNDTABLE 7:00 PM

MON 06/20/05 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 06/22/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 07/04/05 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

MON 07/11/05 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 07/12/05 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

WED 07/13/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 07/18/05 IMPLEMENTATION MEETING 6:00 PM

Transcribed by Jane L. Schimpf, June 29, 2005 Signature on File

Date Approved: July 13, 2005 Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date