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

Present: Members Brian Burke, Victor Cassis, Andrew Gutman, David Lipski, Michael Lynch, Michael Meyer, Wayne Wrobel

Absent: Member John Avdoulos (excused), Mark Pehrson (excused)

Also Present: Barbara McBeth, Director of Planning; Tim Schmitt, Planner; Kristen Kapelanski, Planner; Ben Croy, Engineer; David Beschke, Landscape Consultant; Doris Hill, Woodland Consultant; John Freeland, Wetland Consultant; Tom Schultz, City Attorney

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

Moved by Member Burke, seconded by Member Lynch:

No one from the audience wished to speak.

There was no Correspondence to share.

There were no Committee Reports.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth stated that at the previous City Council meeting, the first readings of the street tree Ordinance update and the outdoor dining standards Ordinance update were both approved. The rezoning on the south side of Twelve Mile was approved, changing the zoning from light industrial to OST.

Ms. McBeth said that Planner Mark Spencer presented the Pathways Prioritization Report, which is an outgrowth of a recommendation found in the Master Plan for Land Use. That plan included a sidewalk phasing plan. This new report has a complete inventory of the sidewalks and pathways throughout the community, and makes recommendations as to which incompleted sections should be done and in which order. Ms. McBeth also said that Jane Schimpf and Marina Neumaier gave a presentation regariding recent updates to the City’s website. City Council also approved the Preliminary Site Plan for Main Street.

Ms. McBeth introduced Kristen Kapelanski, the new planner. Ms. Kapelanski earned her Bachelors Degree from Michigan State University in City and Regional Planning. She worked for the City of Novi in the summers of 2003 and 2004 as an intern. She most recently has worked for the DLZ Company in Lansing, where she performed architectural engineering work.

There was no Consent Agenda.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Jeffrey Backus for Woodland Permit approval. The subject property is located in Section 32 on Bellagio Court, Lot 32. The Applicant is proposing to place a decorative fence within a woodland conservation easement.

Planner Tim Schmitt located the lot on a map for the Planning Commission. It is at the end of Bellagio Court, adjacent to Maybury Park Estates. The southwest rear portion of the yard is in question.

Mr. Schmitt said that Bellagio was developed under a residential option that allowed the developer to reduce the lot size in exchange for setting aside a portion of the natural features on the site. This has historically been done in common areas. In this case, the developer was allowed to set aside areas on specific lots. This is a site condominium, so this Applicant does actually own his land. The area in the rear of this Applicant’s yard was put into the Conservation Easement – a distance of 24.2 feet. Any number of lots in this subdivision also have the Conservation Easement on them. Typically the City shies away from planning like this because of these kinds of problems.

Mr. Backus contacted the City about getting a fence permit, though the City doesn’t issue fence permits. The call was transferred to Mr. Schmitt rather than to the Building Department. Mr. Schmitt realized that Mr. Backus was going to have a problem because of the Conservation Easement. The Planning Commission is now asked to consider Mr. Backus’ request for a Woodland Permit. The Applicant is not proposing to remove any trees. Mr. Schmitt noted that there have been several woodland violations along Bellagio Court. This is not a violation. However, the understory in a woodland is regulated, so the Applicant must request a Woodland Permit for the post holes. The fence will be a traditional wrought-iron (steel) fence. The fence does meet Ordinance standards. The issue is that the post holes are going into a Conservation Easement. No mitigation is required because no trees are being removed.

Mr. Schmitt said that the Planning Department recommends three conditions. No trees shall be removed, and the Applicant has agreed to this stipulation. A staff member should be onsite to confirm that everything is okay, because of the number of woodland concerns that have sprung from Bellagio. The post holes should be dug by hand only, and the Applicant has indicated that this is acceptable. This was also a request in Island Lake for those homes doing work around the lake.

The Applicant provided a plot plan that has a dark line indicating the fence location. In a couple of locations it looks like it is impacting trees, but those trees will be worked around in the field. This is a unique request and Mr. Schmitt did not think that a similar request would ever again come forward. There is a prohibition of fences in Bellagio, but this Applicant was given approval for a fence during the purchasing of his home.

Mr. Jeffrey Backus addressed the Planning Commission. He added that when he purchased the home this fence was a key factor in the negotiation process. This is the first home Mr. Backus has purchased. He stated that he wanted the fence due to the proximity of his back yard to Eight Mile. It would provide more privacy. He had no problem with the three stipulations stated by Mr. Schmitt. He agreed to abide by the Woodland Ordinance. He said that he has had some woodland violations, but they are repaired, and he is waiting for the City Forester, Steve Printz, to stop by and approve the restoration.

No one from the audience wished to speak and no correspondence was received so Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing.

Member Lynch reviewed the plan and didn’t have an issue with the request. The Applicant is willing to abide by the terms. The Applicant should keep himself aware of the wetland and woodland terms in the City.

Member Burke asked if the Applicant understood there was an easement on the lot when he purchased it. Mr. Backus said that he was not told verbally, and he did not read all of the material handed to him, wherein this information may have been listed in the fine print. Mr. Backus insisted that he have this fence in his back yard for his dogs, and he told the developer this was paramount. Mr. Backus wanted as much privacy as he could get.

Member Burke noted that according to the purchasing documents, the developer told the Applicant he could have a fence. Mr. Backus agreed with that statement. He understood that fences are a sensitive issue in this area, and he was told that he should get the developer’s permission at the time of purchase for the installation of the fence.

Member Burke confirmed that the staff member would be onsite for the digging of the post holes. Mr. Schmitt said that the method of post hole digging would be by hand. Member Burke supported the Applicant’s request.

Chair Cassis asked whether a sign should be installed for the Conservation Easement. Mr. Schmitt said that is a requirement, and the sign is located at the main park. Chair Cassis thought that a sign closer to this lot could have put the Applicant on notice. Mr. Schmitt said that typically the signs are near the common areas.

Member Wrobel thanked the Applicant for contacting the City prior to installing the fence. He had no problem with the Applicant being granted his request, provided the three provisions are met. He looked at the plot plan, and he wondered if the fence would impede the growth of any of the tree. Mr. Schmitt said that would depend on several factors. Since the woodlands would remain intact as much as possible, it shouldn’t have a major impact; that is why a staff member will be onsite – to help avoid problems. Member Wrobel supported the request.

Member Gutman said this was a good example of the City working with the community. He applauded Mr. Schmitt’s efforts and the Applicant for being so willing to agree to the terms and conditions set forth by the City.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Burke:

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Matt Sosin of Northern Equities Group for Preliminary Site Plan, Woodland Permit, Wetland Permit and Stormwater Management Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 1, west of Haggerty Road, north of Thirteen Mile, in the OST, Planned Office Service Technology District. The Applicant is proposing the construction of roads and utilities for the second phase of the office park.

Planner Tim Schmitt said that this plan is related to Item Three on the Agenda. This plan is the infrastructure and roads for the area north of Thirteen Mile, bound by Haggerty and M-5. It was located on the overhead projection in red. There is additional property to the north that is owned by a different development company. They have had plans in for review off and on over the years, and eventually Cabot Drive will be finalized. This first phase of the project will take Cabot Drive half-way up and will eventually come out to Haggerty Road, and up north to Fourteen Mile, unless some major tenant comes forward and takes a huge chunk of land.

This proposal has three aspects to it. First, the road and utility construction is proposed. Second, the drain relocation will be further discussed with the Ryder plan that will be presented next. Third, there are some minor etland mitigation issues related to this plan.

The subject property is zoned OST, Office Service Technology, and is master planned for Office, as are all of the properties to the north and south. The zoning to the east, in Farmington Hills, is a combination of Single Family Residential and Multiple Family Residential along Haggerty Road.

There are wetlands throughout the subject property. The drain corridor will be discussed at this meeting, and the wetland edge that is near Cabot Drive. The woodlands are in similar areas. As is consistent with the other road and utility plans, any impacts to each of the individual units will be addressed at the time of their site plan submittals.

The Applicant is seeking a couple of Sidewalk Waivers and some modifications. The Applicant requests a waiver for the sidewalk along Haggerty Road. A majority of this area is a wetland and a boardwalk would be required. The Applicant can discuss this. The Thirteen Mile request will be addressed with Ryder’s plan and the future lot’s plan. There is one gap not shown on the plan that would also be a boardwalk, in an area along Cabot and MacKenzie Drive. The Applicant is proposing to do the work on Cabot and MacKenzie Drive as each unit comes in, which is consistent with Phase One. The Planning Department does not have a problem with that request. The Applicant is also proposing to fill in the gaps in both Phases One and Two – either through the use of boardwalks or bringing the sidewalk closer to the road. The Waiver requests will have to go before City Council for Design and Construction Standards Variances. The Planning Commission could provide feedback on this item.

The Wetland Review and the Woodland Review don’t recommend approval. Both Consultants would like additional information. Since this item was put off from its original Public Hearing date, the Planning Department has now met with the Applicant and their Wetland Consultant to discuss the wetland issues. The City’s Wetland Consultant, Dr. John Freeland, was present at that meeting. A happier conclusion has been reached and some of these details can be discussed at this meeting. A little more of a naturalization of the stream work has now been agreed upon. The wetland mitigation area will be congregated into one larger area rather than in smaller pockets. Doris Hill, the City’s Woodland Consultant, and Dr. Freeland were present at this meeting to answer to any questions.

The Landscape Review indicated that the plan can be approved. The Fire Department Review and the Engineering Review both said that the Applicant must show that 4,000 gallons of water pressure is available. Otherwise, the Applicant will have to loop the water main or seek a Design and Construction Standards Variance.

The sidewalk issues were also raised by the Engineering Review. Civil Engineer Ben Croy was available to discuss these items.

The Traffic Review does not recommend approval. There are minor items that the Traffic Consultant would like to see changed. The Applicant has commented on these items in his response letter.

Matt Sosin addressed the Planning Commission. He was excited to come before the board to discuss this plan, the extension of 1999’s Phase One. He thought it would take ten years to get to this phase, though it has only been seven. They have been successful with this park.

Mr. Sosin said the wetland issues were discussed at a meeting, and since then, the Applicant has decided to scale back the extent of the drain relocation, by about two-thirds. Before, 1,100 lineal feet of the drain was to be relocated; now they are proposing 300-400 lineal feet instead. This reduces the wetland impacts to the stream. It reduces the buffer impacts. It reduces the woodland impacts. By a rough count, forty additional trees will be saved. There are some other wetland impacts, but Mr. Sosin is mitigating at a ratio of about 2:1, which is more than what is required by the Ordinance. Last year he mitigated with the Columbus plan, and that plan was successful. This plan will add to that area, which is now self-sustaining. That plan turned out exactly as planned. The same team involved in that mitigation will be involved with this mitigation. He believed this will be as successful.

Mr. Sosin said that there are two areas where they will seek Sidewalk Waivers. The first area is along Thirteen Mile in between two buildable sites. There are several hundred feet of non-buildable land known as Seeley Drain. There is a height difference of at least ten-fifteen feet between Thirteen Mile and the drain. A boardwalk there is probably impossible. The second area is along Haggerty Road. This is also in the area of the Seeley Drain. There is very little right-of-way distance in between the Seeley Drain and the shoulder of Haggerty Road. There would be significant wetland impacts, notwithstanding any other permit issues with the MDEQ or the County. In lieu of that sidewalk, Mr. Sosin proposes a 1:1 replacement ratio for other sidewalk gaps not required by the Ordinance to be filled in. These areas are near non-buildable lots. Mr. Sosin felt this was a fair alternative, given the environmental impacts and safety issues associated with the Ordinance-required sidewalks along Haggerty and Thirteen Mile roads.

Mr. Sosin said the second phase of the park will look just like the first phase: Class A buildings with nice landscapes – timeless designs with international and domestic Fortune 500 companies.

Chair Cassis asked if the regular sidewalk could be connected within the site, where it can’t be placed near the drain. Mr. Sosin said there will be sidewalks along Cabot Drive. There are sidewalks along Haggerty Road along the Farmington Hills side. There are gaps where Mr. Sosin does not own the land – the corner of Thirteen Mile and Haggerty is an example. There will be gaps no matter what. On the east-west road, on MacKenzie Drive, there could be minimal sidewalks being installed when those lots are developed, but they will stop at their own property line, because those lots end at the Seeley Drive. People will be able to walk through the park; they will be able to ride their bike from Twelve Mile to the northernmost portion of the park. They can cross the street at MacKenzie and continue to ride their bike on the Farmington Hills side of the road. There is still a lot of connectivity. The intent of the sidewalk Master Plan has been met, according to Mr. Sosin.

Chair Cassis said that there are people who want to be active in this community. Mr. Sosin agreed that people who work in his first phase do want to walk. Where there are certain easements, these people have to walk on the street. The proposal set forth by Mr. Sosin would further connect these blips in the sidewalk pattern. This would be of benefit to his tenants and to the City.

Chair Cassis opened the floor for public comment:

Member Wrobel read the Public Hearing correspondence into the record:

Regan Lee, 30579 Crest Forest: Objected to the plan and wanted the wetlands to be saved. She thought it was too much commerce next to residential. She thought the noise would be a problem. She wrote two letters.

Lawrence Schenden, 30265 Stratford Court, Farmington Hills: Wanted wetlands and natural areas to be preserved. Stated a traffic light was needed at Lancaster and Haggerty.

Dorothy and Kathleen Kelly, 40801 Lenox Park Drive: Objected because of the traffic and wanted Haggerty and Thirteen Mile widened first.

Lawrence Bossman, 30842 Crest Forest: Objected for traffic reasons. He did not think more office space was necessary.

Manuel and Iluminada Cedro, 30301 Stratford Court, Farmington Hills: Approved if the wetlands are maintained and the entrance is not on Haggerty.

Christopher Relf, 30662 Crest Forest, Farmington Hills: Approved but wanted to know about traffic calming measures.

Salvatore J. Petres, 30429 Stratford Court: Opposed the plan for traffic, noise, dust and pollution reasons. He cited the top soil operation as a problem to his neighborhood.

Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing.

Member Meyer asked about the boardwalk along Ten Mile between City Hall and Novi Road. Mr. Schmitt said that all of the boardwalks in the City are in good shape. This boardwalk is about 600 feet long. There is a good specification sheet for developers to use. Mr. Schmitt said that the Haggerty sidewalk seems more feasible than the other sidewalk. Mr. Schmitt felt that the MDEQ would look kindly upon a boardwalk design for this area. Generally, the MDEQ has approved these throughout the City. It is likely that the substantial drop near the Seeley Drain may prove difficult. The Planning Department gave a recommendation for a waiver in a similar situation at Twelve Mile and Meadowbrook.

Member Meyer asked if the sidewalk could go around the drain. Mr. Schmitt said the drain would have to be crossed at some point. It curves east into Farmington Hills.

Member Meyer thanked Northern Equities for what they have accomplished. He appreciated their collaboration with the Planning Department on this plan. Member Meyer asked Mr. Sosin to be more conscientious of the dust generated by this plan. Mr. Sosin stated that he did close the entrance near the homes. He also moved his topsoil operation as far west as he could. He can send out water trucks out to water down the dust. He stated he was in compliance with his soil erosion permits. It was not in his best interests to have neighbors mad at him. He will monitor the situation.

Mr. Sosin said that the traffic study was performed on the entire 400 acres, with Phase One. He hoped to have a light one day at the east-west road. This is out of his control. It is a County budgeting issue. The left-hand turn lane on Haggerty would be great but it is a County/State issue. There was also a traffic study done with the M-5 construction.

Chair Cassis asked Mr. Sosin why there were so many complaints regarding the soil operation. Mr. Sosin said that he has done his best – it is a natural occurrence that dirt will have to be moved if the roads are going to be built. It is inevitable that dust will spill over the property line. Mr. Sosin wished that the dust wasn’t a problem. He moved the entrance. He placed mud mats at the entrances and they are cleaned regularly. He brings in new stone as required. He keeps up on the silt fence maintenance. He is not an absentee owner and he knows of the dust problem. Water trucks are called when the dust is really bad. He agreed that he would like to have the job done as soon as possible.

Chair Cassis said that other developers meet with the neighboring homeowners. He asked if Mr. Sosin was available to these homeowners. Mr. Sosin said he did a lot of these fixes without being asked to – he just did it. He told the homeowners to contact him if they have additional problems.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth said that the dust is a code enforcement issue. She forwarded the Petres e-mail to Mr. Sosin when it arrived at City Hall. She agreed that Mr. Sosin does respond to these concerns. Neighborhood Services is also aware of the concerns. She reminded the Planning Commission that they should focus on the plan before them.

Member Lynch asked about Haggerty Road. Mr. Schmitt said that it was an Oakland County road. He asked if this property was recently rezoned to office. Mr. Schmitt said it was rezoned as part of the City’s OST initiative, which he believed occurred in 1997. It was residential acreage prior to that time.

Member Lynch said if the sidewalks weren’t contiguous, he almost wanted to say don’t have them. A sidewalk that leads to nowhere was a problem to him.

Member Lynch asked about the wetlands. Dr. John Freeland, the City’s Wetland Consultant, said that the original proposal was to move about 1,200 lineal feet of the Seeley Drain. This is pretty naturalized – there are a lot of shrubs and wetland habitat. He now understood that Mr. Sosin was going to reduce his impacts. Dr. Freeland was pleased to hear this. He has met with the Applicant to discuss elements of the plan. He needs more detail, but he felt they were moving in the right direction. There is room onsite to mitigate. The wetlands in question are mediocre in quality. They will be easier to recreate and possibly make better. The Applicant will need a State permit as well as a City permit.

Member Lynch understood how dust is a problem with new development. He was glad that the entrance was moved. Unfortunately the prevailing winds move eastward. Certainly, the Applicant has agreed to make the situation as palatable as possible.

Member Lipski asked the City Attorney about the issues brought up by the citizenry. Member Lipski suggested that the Farmington Hills residents contact their own city government to assist them with the ongoing issues of this development. He asked to what extent the comments from Farmington Hills residents are considered. City Attorney Tom Schultz responded that the question was timely, in that the new standards brought forward in the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act improve dialogues between communities. The new standards basically state that communities must worry about adjacent property owners regardless of city boundaries. Mr. Schultz thought this dust was an enforcement issue, and he felt that Novi was on top of issues such as this. Novi did not and does not have to wait for formal communication from a neighboring community in order to act. Mr. Sosin is reasonable, and Mr. Schultz felt that city boundaries were not keeping Mr. Sosin from being a responsible neighbor. The City gave notice to Farmington Hills, as they were obligated to, and the Planning Commission is expected to give credence to the Farmington Hills comments. The legal and civic obligations have been met.

Member Lipski asked what would happen if a developer of a lesser caliber ran rampant and caused problems for Farmington Hills citizens. Mr. Schultz responded that Novi writes tickets because it enforces its own Ordinances. This City does not care about boundary lines. If dust is created in Novi, its enforcement officers will address the situation. Member Lipski encouraged the Farmington Hills residents to also contact their own government, to ensure their rights are protected fully.

Member Burke said the two main issues seem to be traffic and dust. The dust will go away, but is there a remedy for the traffic? Mr. Schmitt responded that short term, there is no remedy. The Road Commission of Oakland County and the State don’t have a plan or the funding for the Haggerty Road widening. While M-5 was expected to resolve the Haggerty problems, stopping it at Pontiac Trail did not do the trick. This development will come forward much like Phase One. Eventually, a light was placed at Twelve Mile and Cabot Drive. Presuming a light will ultimately go at Thirteen Mile and Cabot Drive, traffic will be directed to that entrance. People will know that they can make the light and do the Michigan Left very quickly. At Thirteen Mile, people may actually be able to make the direct left. The light will first have to meet the traffic warrants. Three or four buildings will have to be built before that happens. Long term, Haggerty will probably have to be widened. Though Mr. Schmitt is not a traffic engineer, he understood that eventually there will have to be Haggerty fixes. There is some potential for Lewis Drive in Phase One and MacKenzie Drive in Phase Two to get Haggerty traffic lights. If this happens, traffic will break up for the Lilley Road drivers. There is no short term answer for traffic. Eventually, Cabot will reach Fourteen Mile, which will help keep people off of the side roads. In Phase One, it was noted that Lewis Drive does not get the same use as Cabot Drive.

Mr. Schultz reminded the Planning Commission that this review is regarding the installation of Cabot, the utilities and MacKenzie. Regarding the parcels between Haggerty and Cabot, the more difficult questions regarding three lanes will be explored. Tonight’s review is narrowly focused on the other issues.

Member Wrobel asked about the sidewalks. Mr. Schmitt clarified that the Applicant is seeking waivers for Thirteen Mile, Haggerty, and the internal streets, though the latter will get sidewalks as each lot is developed (this way, the sidewalks don’t get torn up with construction). Mr. Sosin has suggested that he fill in the gaps that aren’t required – both Phases One and Two – in lieu of the Thirteen Mile and Haggerty sidewalks. Mr. Schmitt disagreed with Mr. Sosin’s position that there are sidewalks gaps in Phase Two that wouldn’t be required to be filled in. Under the new Road and Utilities Ordinance, sidewalks are required. The Phase One gaps predate this Ordinance. Cabot Drive was constructed under the Wetland and Woodland Ordinances. Filling in the Phase One gaps is a good idea, but the Planning Department is never going to be in a position to support a Sidewalk Waiver. The Planning Department does understand that the Thirteen Mile sidewalk is going to be an engineering difficulty. It is up to Mr. Sosin to prove to City Council that the area in not buildable. If it is just not possible – Mr. Sosin is the one who has to prove it. Member Wrobel commented that anything can be built, the question is, how much will it cost? Mr. Schmitt concurred.

Member Wrobel is working on the sidewalk issues in the City. He was afraid that granting these waivers will just cause a problem down the road. He was hesitant to endorse Mr. Sosin’s request.

Ms. McBeth wished to note that some improvements along Haggerty Road are proposed with this site plan. Ingress/egress lanes and turn lanes have been added to Haggerty. Mr. Sosin has worked with the City to get the Twelve Mile/Cabot Drive light. This same cooperation can be brought forward again if Mr. Sosin believes another traffic light is necessary. Typically, this will be reviewed with each incoming site plan.

Member Gutman asked about the wetlands and woodlands. Mr. Schmitt said that this plan was postponed from a previous meeting because of the Public Hearing publication issue with the Novi News. As it turned out, it was beneficial because the City had time to work with the Applicant on the wetland issues. Everyone met, and headway was made in naturalizing the stream. This relocation will actually be better than the relocation done with the Columbus plan. The new plan will emulate a stream versus a channel. The woodlands will have some removals, but the number of trees has been reduced. A reduction in numbers will make everyone happy. The final count will be shown on the Final Site Plan.

Member Gutman said that Northern Equities has been a friend to this community. They tend to go beyond the call of duty, which is appreciated. Member Gutman was glad to see the Farmington Hills residents come in to protect their interests.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Meyer:

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Meyer:

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Meyer:

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Meyer:

City Attorney Tom Schultz asked if the stipulation regarding all environmental issues related to the site and drain, and the comments found in the Staff and Consultant review letters, were part of the Wetland and Woodland motions. Was this the intention of the Planning Commission, that these statements should have also been part of the wetland and woodland motions? Chair Cassis confirmed that this was indeed the case.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Matt Sosin of Northern Equities Group for Preliminary Site Plan, Woodland Permit, Wetland Permit, and Stormwater Management Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 1, north of Thirteen Mile between Haggerty Road and the M-5 Connector, in the OST, Planned Office Service Technology District. The subject property is 13.37 acres and the Applicant is proposing to construct a 150,000 square foot office building.

Planner Tim Schmitt stated that site is located on the north side of Thirteen Mile, just east of Haggerty Road. These parcels are not owned by Northern Equities. The property is zoned OST, as are the properties in all directions. Further east in Farmington Hills there are Single Family Residential homes. The sites are all master planned for Office, consistent with the Novi OST Study.

There are wetlands on the site, including the drain along the northern edge of the property. There is a detention basin proposed on the site. There are regulated woodlands on the site. Some woodlands were previously removed for farming operations. A Woodland Permit is sought for removals along the northern and southern areas of the site.

The building is similar to the Columbus Corporate Office Center. The architecture is similar to that proposed throughout the park. This building is slightly larger than Columbus.

The Planning Commission must consider the request for a Loading Area Screening Waiver. The building screens the area from the roadway. The Planning Department has little concern over this request. There is no proposed truck dock, though a space has been reserved for such an addition.

Additional information is necessary for the Wetland and Woodland Consultants. The Applicant is proposing wetland mitigation in two locations. Cabot Drive is adjacent to a large wetland. The Applicant will mitigate in that area, filling in the gaps. It will create a more contiguous, larger wetland. The Applicant is also proposing some mitigation along Haggerty Road, in the area near the Phase One mitigation. As Mr. Sosin mentioned earlier in the evening, the mitigation area has been performing well. The drain itself is something of a mitigation. The Applicant has been asked to naturalize their drain plans. This has been discussed and some good ideas have come forward. There will be some island area, uplands, ponds, etc. It won’t just be a channelized drain ditch. This will be an interesting project. This will be different from the traditional wetland mitigation.

The Landscape Review also noted the need for the Loading Zone Screening Waiver.

The Traffic Review noted that an Opposite Side Driveway Spacing Waiver is necessary for the Thirteen Mile entrance, between Ryder and Caring Nurses. The review also noted that it would be nice to prohibit left hand turns onto Thirteen Mile, from the Ryder site, in an attempt to drive traffic to Cabot Drive, ultimately resulting in higher traffic so the warrants can be met to get a traffic signal. The Applicant has proposed to shift the driveway to eliminate the Waiver. They have not offered to put in a right-hand turn only sign. Given the elimination of the Waiver request, the Planning Department is not really in a position to enforce that request.

The Fire Department Review approves of the plan.

The Section 9 Façade Waiver is again required for the use of cast stone. Mr. Schmitt showed the façade board to the Planning Commission.

Mr. Sosin addressed the Planning Commission. He introduced Rob Weineman of Etkin Equities, Northern Equities’ joint partner on this project. The Ryder project will bring 700 jobs to Michigan. Mr. Sosin thought the stream issue had already been discussed, but he offered to answer any other questions. The façade is the same as the Columbus building.

Mr. Sosin asked for an Opacity Waiver for the berm planting. The landscape requirements are very stringent, and Mr. Sosin did not know where additional plant material could be added. Mr. Sosin thought he needed a Parking Island Shrub Waiver, but Mr. Schmitt told him that he did not need it.

Chair Cassis asked about the Opacity Waiver. Landscape Architect David Beschke said that the Ordinance requires 80-90% opacity, basically blocking the view of the parking lot. This is a strong requirement and it is being looked at for change. What the Applicant has proposed is reasonable, but it does not meet the Ordinance. If the Planning Commission is going to give a Waiver, it would be for reduced opacity, with the Applicant continuing to work with the Planning Department on the plan. The Applicant has done a good job. The response letter addresses some clean-up items. The Applicant’s landscape architect is very cooperative.

No one from the audience wished to speak and no correspondence was received so Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing.

Member Lynch appreciated Northern Equities working with the Planning Department and the communities – both Novi and Farmington Hills.

Member Gutman asked about the screening requirements. Mr. Schmitt responded that the Implementation Committee members have drafted an Ordinance change that would alleviate this problem with loading zone screening requirements. The change has not yet come forward. The Applicant can continue to work the City to ensure that his design meets the intent of the Ordinance. The Planning Department will also ensure that this Ordinance change will indeed come forward for consideration. Mr. Schmitt did not believe a waiver was necessary.

Member Gutman confirmed that the prohibition of left-hand turns can not be requested at this time. Member Gutman felt this was a wonderful project.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Burke:

Chair Cassis stated that this was a great example of cooperation between state and local governments and developers getting together to bring the City of Novi a project that will bring jobs, taxes and some neighbors and residents.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Burke:

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Burke:

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Burke:

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Singh Development, LLC, for Preliminary Site Plan with Site Condominium, Woodland Permit, Wetland Permit, and Stormwater Management Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 20, south of Eleven Mile and west of Beck Road, in the R-1, One-family Residential District. The subject property is approximately 38.86 acres and the Applicant is proposing a 58 unit site condominium development, under the terms of a Planned Rezoning Overlay Agreement.

Planner Tim Schmitt described the project for the Planning Commission. The site is east of the ITC corridor and west of Beck Road. It is known as the Bosco Farm property, which is owned by the Novi Community Schools. The Master Plan for Land Use recommends Single Family Residential for this property and the properties to the north and slightly to the west. Directly to the west is the utility corridor. To the east is an institutional use – an educational facility. The property is zoned R-1 with a PRO. The properties to the south and west are zoned R-A and to the north is R-3 land.

There is a large amount of woodlands on the site and some regulated wetlands. There is a floodplain on the site. The new FEMA floodplain maps were used to determine this item.

Mr. Schmitt said that this is the first PRO to come forward. He showed the Planning Commission the approved configuration. The units are all on an internal roadway system. The area surrounding the development will remain naturalized – or disturbed but eventually restored in some fashion. The Applicant proposed a stormwater detention recharge/wetland mitigation in two areas. There is now a wetland proposed for removal. This was not anticipated in the PRO Agreement. Dr. Freeland, the City’s Wetland Consultant, can discuss this further.

The PRO Agreement was given to the Planning Commission for review. The Applicant was proposing to use the concept of the Cluster Ordinance – over 50% of the site will not be built upon. A majority of it is being disturbed, but it will be restored. The Applicant is over the 50% amount by one-tenth of one percent.

The plan does generally comply with the PRO. The Planning Department had three concerns. The one wetland impact is above and beyond what was described in the PRO. The Agreement was written as such that as long as the area is restored it can count toward the naturalized 50%. There are two temporary wetland crossings that allow for construction. The Planning Department did not see the need for these crossings, but it is in front of the Planning Commission as part of the Wetland Permit. There was some concern over the stormwater detention numbers that were used at the time of conceptual approval. Civil Engineer Ben Croy addresses this in his review letter. The Applicant has come to the conclusion that they are providing substantial stormwater detention but it appears that the original number was overstated. They are still providing double the capacity that they would be required to provide.

The Wetland Review recommends approval. There isn’t a concern with filling in that additional wetland. It is not the greatest quality, and the mitigation may yield a higher quality wetland. There are multiple items that need to be clarified at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. The 50% of the site that is remaining naturalized must be placed into a conservation easement. The Woodland Consultant has suggested that the woodland replacement trees be included in that easement. There are a couple areas where replacements are planned for but the area is not within the easement.

Mr. Schmitt said this plan will be a general condominium. The City would be comfortable with the conservation easement being wrapped in and around the homesites.

The Landscape Review recommends approval subject to two Planning Commission Waivers. The right-of-way berm is adjacent to the drainage course on the east side of the site and the Planning Department supports its waiving. The Planning Commission may also grant a Waiver for the use of a decorative brick wall in lieu of a berm in several locations. This is a nice treatment and the Planning Department supports the request.

The Traffic Review is concerned about several items that must be addressed at the time of the Final Site Plan submittal. "K" values and vertical curves must be further described. These are technical items that have been asked for a couple of times.

The Engineering Review and Fire Department Review both recommend approval. There are some minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

This is how the Planning Department anticipated the PRO to work. The concept plan gave the framework. The Preliminary Site Plan has not changed much. The smaller details, like the wetland impacts, can be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The City doesn’t feel this item is big enough to make an amendment to the PRO necessary.

Mike Kahm of Singh Development addressed the Planning Commission. He said the Preliminary Site Plan is very similar to the concept plan upon which the PRO was based. The primary deviation is the wetland issue. The wetland that is being changed is a field with canary grass. It made more sense to them to take this marginal wetland and make it a more high quality emergent wetland. This will actually increase the amount of wetlands on the site. The stormwater detention capability has now been increased. This is actually a bigger benefit than what was committed to by the Applicant.

Chair Cassis noted that no one in the audience wished to speak. He asked Member Wrobel to read the Public Hearing correspondence:

Allan and Helen Burton, 48100 Eleven Mile: Approved of the plan.

Robert Gannon, 47515 Eleven Mile: Approved of the plan.

Barbara Gannon, 47515 Eleven Mile: Approved of the plan. It will be an attractive plan.

Greg Gallo, 48000 Eleven Mile: Objected to the plan because the existing residential areas are not properly maintained. There will be trash and traffic problems. The drainage is not properly maintained.

Barb Mentim, ITC, 39500 Orchard Hills Place: ITC would like to see the site plan (this was done).

City Attorney Tom Schultz said that another benefit provided by this plan is an easement for access to the ITC corridor. If the Planning Commission approves this plan, Mr. Schultz suggested that a motion stipulation be that the resolution of the easement language be forthcoming with the Final Site Plan submittal. This provides a bit of wiggle room within which the City can work.

Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing.

Member Burke said this was a difficult property and he was glad to see the plan move forward. Member Burke asked whether there was an alternative plan if ITC and the City cannot come to an agreement on that easement. Mr. Kahm said that the PRO Agreement gives an alternative route. The selection of the location is really left up to the City. Singh Development is open to either option. They have agreed to provide the easement, and while there are still wrinkles, it will be worked out. Mr. Kahm said that beyond this project, there isn’t many other options to get to Ten Mile with this path other than through the corridor. There are homes along Ten Mile. The corridor is 100 feet wide and runs from Ten Mile to the north, approximately two-thirds up the Providence property. The corridor then turns into an easement, which is somewhat odd. South of Ten Mile the width is about the same but it is on an angle so it does widen and narrow along the way.

Member Lynch asked about the pathway. Mr. Schmitt said the path will not be located near the homes. It is on the other side of the drain, if the path ends up on the Oberlin site. If the easement is on the ITC corridor, it is completely off of the Oberlin site and on the other side of the wood line. Mr. Schultz said that at this time it is just an easement. There are no requirements for improvement of this easement. At some point in time the City will have to figure out how this area will connect up with the trail head at Singh Trail and at the Providence site to the north. It will be a public pathway.

Member Lipski stated that he had no problems with this plan.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Wrobel:

The Public Hearing was opened for Planning Commission’s recommendation to City Council for an ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 97-18, as amended, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance, to amend the process for temporary uses to streamline the review and approval of these applications.

Planner Tim Schmitt explained that this amendment is one of two proposals that will bring the Zoning Ordinance into compliance with the recent Michigan Zoning Enabling Act (MZEA). The Temporary Use information was chosen first by City Council to correct, partially because the process is rather painstaking, even when the request is simple. The other issue that weighed on this choice is that Public Hearing requirements changed with the MZEA and are now more arduous.

This Ordinance was constructed by the Planning Department, Building Department and the City Attorney. It sets up two classes for what are now deemed Special Exceptions. The one class still falls under the traditional land use-type exception, e.g., the concrete batch plant, the on-site construction trailer, etc. Permanent items such as these will not be streamlined through the process. However, the process that will become easier through this text amendment will be requests such as sidewalk sales, Christmas tree farms, etc. These are typically transient and temporary uses that don’t impact the community outside of the subject property.

By creating these two classes, Building Official Don Saven can now take care of some of the truly temporary requests in a more expeditious manner, while the other exceptions will still be handled with the traditional scrutiny. Mr. Schmitt noted that border line requests will be sent through the traditional process with a Public Hearing. The City will err on the side of caution.

City Attorney Tom Schultz gave credit to the ZBA Secretary, Robin Working, for her effort in reviewing the grammar and punctuation of the amendment.

Mr. Schmitt said that the City is doing the right thing with this amendment, i.e., streamlining the process for those applicants whose requests are minimal.

No one from the audience wished to speak and no correspondence was received so Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing.

Member Wrobel asked the City Attorney whether he had any issues with the language as presented. Mr. Schultz did not. He reiterated that the amendment was designed to accommodate readily those requests that minimally impact the City or the subject property’s surroundings.

Member Gutman stated he was a proponent of streamlining the process.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Wrobel:

The Public Hearing was opened for Planning Commission’s recommendation to City Council for an ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 97-18, as amended, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance, to incorporate requirements of the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act, Act 110 of the Public Acts of 2006.

Planner Tim Schmitt explained that this text amendment cleans up the Ordinance and brings it into compliance with the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act (MZEA) that went into effect on July 1, 2006. Mr. Schmitt emphasized that the City has been complying with the Act since that time, but it has also been watching to see how this Act would be implemented statewide, and whether a modification to the Act would be forthcoming soon.

Mr. Schmitt said there was quite an uproar statewide by municipal planning departments, as none were really given an opportunity to explain how this Act would affect them on a daily basis. Robin Working from the Building Department and Angela Pawlowski from the Planning Department have been working with Chris Blough in the GIS Department to create a database that will accommodate the new MZEA language. Notifications will be sent now to all residents within 300 feet, regardless of city boundaries. The trickier change based on the MZEA is that tenants of apartments and condominiums must be individually noticed, rather than notification going to the landlord or association only. Mr. Schmitt complimented his coworkers for their hard work. He noted that the change must be working, as one of this meeting’s Public Hearings resulted in audience participants coming from neighboring Farmington Hills.

Mr. Schmitt said that most of the language that is changed in this text amendment comes straight from the MZEA. The City did not freelance any of the language, although some clean-up things were necessary. There is a specific discussion on variances and the standards for variances. This language was taken right from the Act.

City Attorney Tom Schultz added that with the next round of Planning Commission appointments, the new statute requires that someone from the Planning Commission must be the liaison to and member of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Schultz said that it is possible that this standard will not survive. An amendment is in Legislature or in the works that would remove this stipulation. In a city like Novi, where these two boards do so much, that could be a painful onus to place on a citizen. If this is not stricken from the MZEA, the City will be required to appoint a dual-acting Planning Commission/ZBA member. This language reads that one Planning Commission member shall be on the ZBA if required by statute. City Council has a number of options, one of which is to add a seventh person to the ZBA rather than to decide who not to re-appoint.

Mr. Schultz said that one of the sponsors of the MZEA legislation is a municipal attorney, and he has since heard enough items that he understands that some tweaking to the language is necessary. He has been talking to the Michigan Municipal League (MML), though Mr. Schultz did not think that the new legislation has been formally introduced as yet.

Chair Cassis thought that the MZEA Act took a long time to go through the legislative process. He cited Patty Burkholz as a senator who takes credit for this change. The Act meant well; it was designed to put a little connection between communities. It makes neighboring communities responsible to each other. Chair Cassis asked Mr. Schultz if he thought this was a good Act. Mr. Schultz responded that too many people were involved in its creation for it not to be considered well-intended. The concept of taking three zoning enabling acts for counties, townships and cities, and making one inclusive act, is a fine idea and took a lot of effort. But in doing so, some things became evident that, perhaps more to the practitioners than to the legislators, they were problematic. The concept of a dual position on the Planning Commission and ZBA is a problem in a big city, though probably not in a township. The individual tenant notification versus owner notification is onerous. Notifying tenants and landowners in neighboring communities also presented a problem. No one has a problem with this general idea, it’s just that it is difficult to enforce from a practical standpoint.

No one from the audience wished to speak and no correspondence was received so Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing.

Member Lynch said that he didn’t understand what the notification to neighbors effectively did; what rights does a person have to try to block a neighbor’s request? Mr. Schmitt responded that a more regional school of thought is at play here: in some areas of the United States there are multi-jurisdictional planning authorities. There are places in surrounding states that have extra-territorial rights – if a city of a certain size has a rezoning request within a mile of its boundaries, then the city has a legal voice in how that rezoning happens. That city can make the rezoning comply with its zoning, in certain circumstances. This is a shift in understanding that boundary-area decisions, e.g., a Haggerty Road decision, are going to affect the neighboring community. In this case, the City can now get comments from Farmington Hills’ residents on Haggerty Road plans. If there’s an issue, now the City can try to remedy the problem. This is an effort to recognize that the multi-jurisdictional approach has its positives in many ways. This amendment is not going to the level of stating that neighboring cities have to comply with each other’s zoning ordinances, or county-wide zoning, but it is taking a step toward encouraging municipalities to become good neighbors.

Mr. Schmitt said that the City has previously been notified on adjacent land use requests, more as a courtesy from those communities. Some of Novi’s neighbors already had policies in place that they would notify their neighbors. In some cases the City has attended other communities’ Public Hearings. This MZEA change is meant to improve discussion between communities. Now if Novi plans to put a concrete batch plant on the corner of Fourteen Mile and M-5, the people in Commerce will be notified and will be given a chance to have their say. This notion is very philosophical in nature. As a planner, Mr. Schmitt was supportive of the effort.

Member Lynch reiterated that he agreed that people should have the right to have their say. But, at the end of the day, the decision will be made by the appropriate governing body. He confirmed that there isn’t anything more here at play, such as on the county level. Mr. Schultz responded that there wasn’t; some opponents to this process are cynical in thinking that this is the first step to a regionalization and loss of home rule, city to city, across boundary lines. This amendment is a step up. This City has always taken the position that it should, as a matter of courtesy, notify other communities. As the City Attorney read the previous statute, since the notification was based on tax rolls, and the City only had its own tax roll, it was not obligated to cross the boundary. Now it is an obligation. But now the obligation is for occupants, not just owners, and that is a little more onerous than it needs to be. Mr. Schultz reiterated that the MZEA does not give anyone veto rights; it’s about notification, not nullification, of what other communities do.

Member Meyer said that Article 32.c didn’t seem to be clear. It states that the City’s Planning Commission, having been designated as the Zoning Commission prior to July 2006, shall continue to exercise the authority of the Zoning Commission. In Part f, it states that it is hereby established that a Zoning Board of Appeals…. Member Meyer said that he has been on both boards, and understands that these are two separate boards. But to a neophyte, this information is confusing. How does a Zoning Commission differ from a Zoning Board of Appeals? He wondered if this new language could also include a parenthetical statement that the Zoning Commission is not the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Schmitt said that the language is just as confusing to a practitioner as it is to a neophyte.

There was a fairly specific standard that requires cities to designate a Zoning Commission. In Novi’s case, it is called a Planning Commission. It is just a matter of terminology. This new section is meant to state that the Planning Commission was designated long before the MZEA went into effect. There is a provision in the state statute that allows this. The language states that the Planning Commission will continue to act in its same capacity.

Mr. Schultz explained that the old system was set up such that the only reference therein was to a Zoning Commission. Then, there was a separate municipal zoning act that came along which stated that a Planning Commission can be created that acts as the Zoning Commission. When the recent MZEA was passed, the language was combined, and the new language states that Zoning Commissions have to be replaced by Planning Commissions. The language added here was taken right from the statute. It translates as, here in Novi, that the Planning Commission is the Zoning Commission, and it’s going to stay that way. Member Meyer’s point was well taken, and Mr. Schultz said that perhaps some clarification could be added.

Member Wrobel asked if other communities are obligated to provide the City with the neighboring addresses affected by a Public Hearing. Mr. Schmitt said that Oakland County has a very good parcel identification system so Novi is very lucky. The County Database will give parcel ownership information. With apartment communities in adjacent cities, Novi will likely seek help from that municipality. Novi expects that adjacent cities have already begun to put together their apartment addresses.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth noted that GIS Manager Chris Blough has commented that working with Farmington Hills has been good. They are very cooperative. He has been making contact with the other communities as well.

Member Gutman stated that the City is very lucky to have such a talented staff and talented consultants.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Lipski:

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Wrobel:

There were no Consent Agenda Removals.

There were no Matters for Discussion.

There were no Supplemental Issues.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Moved by Member Gutman:

The meeting adjourned at or about 10:27 PM.

MON 12/04/06 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 12/05/06 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

THU 12/07/06 MASTER PLAN AND ZONING COMMITTEE MEETING 6:30 PM

WED 12/13/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 12/18/06 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

MON/TUE 12/25 & 12/26 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

MON 01/08/06 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 01/10/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

Transcribed by Jane L. Schimpf, January 5, 2007 Signature on file

Date Approved: January 10,2007 Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date