The meeting was called to order at or about 7:00 PM.

Present:　 Members Victor Cassis, David Greco (7:02 PM), Andrew Gutman (7:32 PM), Brian Larson, Michael Lynch, Michael Meyer, Mark Pehrson

Absent: Member Wayne Wrobel (excused)

Also Present: Steve Rumple, Community Development Director; Barbara McBeth, Deputy Director of Community Development; Kristen Kapelanski, Planner; Ben Croy, Civil Engineer; Brian Coburn, Civil Engineer; John Freeland, Wetland Consultant; Martha Holzheuer, Woodland Consultant; Dave Campbell, Traffic Consultant; Kristin Kolb, City Attorney (7:26 PM)

Member Cassis led the meeting attendees in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Moved by Member Lynch, seconded by Member Cassis:

Chair Pehrson opened the floor for public comment:

Brian Burke, Halston: Thanked the Planning Commission, Staff and the City Attorney for the opportunity to serve with them. Mr. Burke was appointed to City Council on January 5, 2009.

Roger Monforton, Greenwood Oaks: Stated that his subdivision residents are not averse to senior housing at Legacy Parc but they do not want a commercial component on that plan. He did not see a need for additional commercial during the State’s economic downturn. He did not think the parkland-exchange-for-commercial proposal had merit.

Larry Michaels, Shoreline Drive: Represented Island Lake in requesting that the southwest quadrant of the City remain residential as affirmed by the Master Plan update of 2008. The commercial component is out of character with the quadrant. He voiced concern about the project draining into the Lyon Drain which flows into Island Lake. He stated that the Island Lake Homeowners have invested quite a bit of resources into maintaining the lake amenity. He said that an age restriction on the Legacy Parc residents is not enforceable. Approving this commercial component could create a commercial domino link along Ten Mile.

Nurendra Nagar, Blooming Day Childcare: Wanted to ensure that the same level of scrutiny and pressure is placed on this Applicant for his daycare proposal as what he went through thirteen years ago. He had to provide a feasibility study, address traffic, demonstrate Master Plan adherence and viable public good. He was asked how he would address a vacant building issue if he were to go out of business; he asked if he goes out of business in light of this proposed daycare being approved, would the City still consider him as the reason for his own demise?

Robert Lunsford, Leyland Circle: Opposed rezoning. He said that the proposal does not conform to the Master Plan and the residents do not recommend its approval.

Dr. Janet Schwamb, Bellingham: Said the proposal would destroy the tranquility and residential character of the southwest quadrant. She encouraged the Planning Commission to deny the request.

Troy Simmon, Acorn Trail: Did not see any need for the commercial element of this proposal. He did not want the additional traffic.

Doug Berg, Billenca Drive: Thought that there should the consistency in the application of the Master Plan. He was opposed to the Legacy Parc proposal.

John Tominsky, Cedarwood: Read a letter from the Echo Valley residents stating that the citizens should be able to trust the City in maintaining the integrity of the Master Plan.

Susan Gorz, Glenwood: Located to this area of the City because of the residential flair of the quadrant. She opposed the Legacy Parc proposal.

Greg Sorentino, Reeds Pointe: Opposed to the Legacy Parc proposal. He identified the floundering commercial property along Grand River. He did not think the Master Plan should be adjusted to reflect a change in the market condition.

Mike Bozimowski, Glenwood: He considered a change to the Master Plan a disguised taking of the land in the area. Adding density and commercial would reduce the value of existing homes.

Member Greco arrived at 7:02 PM. City Attorney Kristin Kolb arrived at 7:26 PM. Member Gutman arrived at 7:32 PM.

Member Gutman acknowledged member Brian Burke’s letter of resignation.

There were no Committee Reports.

Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth said the City Council’s first readings of the Façade Ordinance update and Outdoor Sales Ordinance update were both approved. She encouraged the Planning Commission members to make recommendations for the upcoming budget.

1. NOVI PLAZA, SP08-38 Consideration of the request of Designer Rug Outlet, Inc. for Supplemental Final Site Plan approval for façade only and a Section 9 Façade Waiver. The subject property is located in Section 23 at the southeast corner of Grand River Avenue and Novi Road in the TC-1, Town Center District. The subject property is approximately 1.0 acres and the Applicant is proposing to modify the existing facade.

Moved by Member Meyer, seconded by Member Gutman:

The Public Hearing was opened on the Planning Commission’s recommendation to City Council for consideration of rezonings 18.683, 18.684, 18.685 and 18.686 in conjunction with a Planned Rezoning Overlay (PRO) and Residential Unit Development (RUD) from R-1, One-Family Residential and RA, Residential Acreage to RM-1, Low Density, Low-Rise Multiple-Family Residential and B-2, Community Business. The subject properties are located in Section 30 on the south side of Ten Mile between Napier Road and Wixom Road and the Applicant has indicated the rezoning is being proposed to facilitate the construction of an active adult community and senior housing facility.

Planner Kristen Kapelanski provided an overview of the Legacy Parc Proposal. The Applicant is proposing the rezoning of an approximate 329-acre property located on the south side of Ten Mile between Napier Road and Wixom Road from R-1, One-Family Residential and RA, Residential Acreage to RM-1, Low Density Multiple Family Residential and B-2, Community Business with a Planned Rezoning Overlay. A portion of the property would remain R-1 with a modified RUD Agreement. According to the map Ms. Kapelanski was displaying, the yellow portion of the map would remain zoned R-1, the pink portion would be rezoned to B-2 and the green, brown and blue portions would be rezoned to RM-1.

To the north of the subject property are vacant land, single-family residential homes and Oak Pointe Church. To the west are single-family residential homes and vacant land. To the south are vacant land, parkland and single-family residential homes. To the east are Fire Station 4 and vacant land.

The subject property is currently zoned R-1 with an RUD and a Development Agreement. The previously approved RUD and Development Agreement for this property rezoned the property from RA to R-1 to accommodate the development of 320 [439] detached single-family homes. The site is bordered by RA zoning in all directions and R-1 zoning in Lyon Township across Napier Road. The Future Land Use Map currently designates the majority of the project area for singe-family residential use with a portion on the eastern side planned for a public park. The majority of the property surrounding the site is also master planned for single-family uses.

There are some wetlands on the site, mostly concentrated on the edges of the property. There are also woodlands throughout the site, mostly in the rear portion of the property but also bordering the eastern and western edges.

The Applicant is requesting to rezone a portion of this property to RM-1 and B-2 and modify the existing Development Agreement on the remainder of the property. They are proposing the development of an active adult community which would consist of 320 detached single-family homes, 220 attached duplex units, a senior housing facility, a daycare center and a retail development. The detached homes constitute the revised Development Agreement and R-1 zoning request, with the remainder of the property being rezoned with a PRO. The Applicant has requested that this proposal be reviewed as one large application rather than having each aspect reviewed separately. It is also important to note that the proposal does involve a piece of City-owned property at the northeast corner of the site near the fire station. The Applicant is proposing to rezone this property to construct a portion of the retail center. No decision on whether to permit the inclusion of said property has been made by the City at this time.

Ms. Kapelanski said that the Planning Review does not support this request for a number of reasons. First and foremost, the proposed zoning districts are contrary to the recommendations of the Master Plan. Also, the proposed RUD Plan and proposed PRO contain a number of Ordinance deviations and the Applicant has not demonstrated how these deviations will meet the requirements of Section 2404.6 or will be an enhancement to the development. The R-1 zoning is also consistent with the zoning throughout the southwest quadrant of the City.

The City’s Traffic Consultant recommended the Traffic Impact Study be revised to address the methodology concerns as outlined in the Traffic Review. The Applicant is also requesting multiple waivers of the Design and Construction standards and there are lingering concerns regarding the proposed layout of the road system.

The Engineering Review indicated the plan would have a noticeable impact on the public utilities when compared to the previously approved RUD Plan and noted a number of variances that would be required.

The Landscape Review indicated that the Applicant should adhere to applicable Ordinances and additional information will be necessary at the time of Preliminary Site Plan review.

The Wetland Review did not recommend approval and noted concerns with the proposed impacts and with the quality of water that would leave the site and enter Island Lake. The Woodland Review did not recommend approval, citing concerns about the amount of woodlands impacted and the high quality of the impacted woodlands.

The Fire Marshall recommended approval.

The Façade Consultant provided general comments based on the Applicant’s renderings.

There are a number of major conditions in the proposed PRO Agreement and modified Development Agreement. These are outlined by the Applicant in the provided binder. As a public benefit associated with both the PRO and the modified RUD, the Applicant proposes the donation of parkland on the eastern side of the property along with the construction of a walking path through the donated parkland.

Joe Galvin represented Singh Development. He introduced Michael Kahm of Singh Development. He asked the Planning Commission to recommend approval of this proposal to City Council. He said there are concrete and perhaps controversial reasons why the Planning Commission should recommend this integrated approach to active adult living. Mr. Galvin said Novi needs this active adult community on this parcel now.

Mr. Galvin said this particular parcel is in the southwest quadrant of the City. It was studied last year during the Master Plan update. It is of a size and location which is unique in this City. It is the only parcel in the City which is truly suitable for this use. It is the only parcel which is sufficiently large to accommodate the use that Singh proposes – an active senior neighborhood. This is a use not otherwise found in the City of Novi, perhaps not even in southeast Michigan.

Why does Novi need this development? Mr. Galvin said the Planning Commission should take a look around. Look at the people. Look at the Master Plan study. In 2005 Novi’s demographic included 8% seniors. In twenty years, this number will be doubled. If Novi were isolated from the rest of the country, then so what? But it is not; this is the direction in which the population of the country is going. In planning for all of the City of Novi, there is a need to place this use somewhere. This City has not historically planned for this use. There is probably no other suitable parcel for this in the City. Searching through the Master Plan, while considering the comments of the Master Plan Consultants, the Planning Commission will find that no land has been proposed for an active adult community.

Given that this parcel is suitable, and given that the studies that were conducted in conjunction with the Master Plan have shown the need for this use, the City must consider why it needs this now. The City will be unable to meet the need of this demographic unless it starts preparing for it today. There are two correlative facts at which the Planning Commission should look. There is no other viable use for this parcel today. Given the economic situation in this region, there is little or any likelihood in the foreseeable future that a parcel of this size will find a use. This proposal is a very good idea; it embodies a number of principles of planning for the "green society." It preserves 42% of the land. The developed land will be in a concentrated area. The commercial services will reduce traffic and lengths of trips for the area’s residents. Placing the amenities within a short distance of the project follows the basic and fundamental principles for green planning.

Mr. Galvin asked why approval shouldn’t be given. He has heard comments made over time, and the single strongest, most urgent of negativity is that the proposal doesn’t follow the Master Plan. The City just spent a whole bunch of money on studies and committees studied this area specifically and it was determined not to change the Master Plan designation, even though the studies identified the demographic changes that lead to the need for this community.

Mr. Galvin said this Legacy Parc proposal was presented to City Council almost two years ago and it was well received. The commercial component was questioned, but the layout, design and uses for the active adult community were met with generally favorable comments. Mr. Galvin said the studies told the City that there is an existing need for 89,000 square feet of commercial. When the Master Plan was prepared, that finding was rejected. The Master Plan minutes show that many residents of the southwest quadrant said they were willing to drive from their homes to other locations for goods and services. Mr. Galvin said the Master Plan should represent the beliefs of the residents, but it should also represent the current and future needs of the City. The Master Plan did not account for active adult living or commercial.

Mr. Galvin said his comments were perhaps not popular. But they are true. The factual basis for the recommendation on which the Planning Commission is being called, is found in the documents that were prepared for the City’s Master Plan. The Applicant is not asking the City to do anything which its own Master Plan studies didn’t say was needed or necessary to be done. What does that mean? He continued that while some people who live in the area may not want this project to be done, the things that form the basis – the underlying, fundamental premise for a Master Plan – indicate that it ought to be done.

Mr. Galvin said the Planning Commission’s decision is on the project – not the individual pieces, the rezoning, the RUD Amendment or the implementation of the PRO. Those are all necessary pieces because the City’s Ordinance doesn’t have a PUD Ordinance. He asked the Planning Commission to consider the project as a whole. Does this active adult community on this parcel at this time in this City, make sense? He thought that it did.

Chair Pehrson opened the floor for public comment:

Scott Daly, Reed’s Pointe: Rejected the proposal. He thought that more people would be looking for parental housing in the warmer climate, and that Fox Run was a well-run alternative to this proposal and is already in Novi.

Fred Schwamb, Bellingham: Noted that the senior complex on Milford Road has stopped construction because there is no demand for the product. He said that Mr. Singh owns the retirement facility near Twelve Oaks Mall. He said that Mr. Singh built commercial just down the road after he built the residential. All retail is available within two miles, and nothing is needed here. He thought the area was over-saturated with banks, pharmacies and daycares.

Glenn King, Saybrook Ct.: Thought it was odd that Mr. Galvin would live elsewhere and come to Novi to tell it what it needs. He said that this Applicant should consider the possibility of large bankruptcies and what they would do to this Metro-Detroit community. His assessed value is already 20% lower than when he bought the place three years ago.

Palani, Bellingham Drive: He said there is quite a bit of traffic on Ten Mile already. There is enough commercial in the area.

[Below are comments made earlier in the meeting, prior to the opening of the Public Hearing:

Brian Burke, Halston: Thanked the Planning Commission, Staff and the City Attorney for the opportunity to serve with them. Mr. Burke was appointed to City Council on January 5, 2009.

Roger Monforton, Greenwood Oaks: Stated that his subdivision residents are not averse to senior housing at Legacy Parc but they do not want a commercial component on that plan. He did not see a need for additional commercial during the State’s economic downturn. He did not think the parkland-exchange-for-commercial proposal had merit.

Larry Michaels, Shoreline Drive: Represented Island Lake in requesting that the southwest quadrant of the City remain residential as affirmed by the Master Plan update of 2008. The commercial component is out of character with the quadrant. He voiced concern about the project draining into the Lyon Drain which flows into Island Lake. He stated that the Island Lake Homeowners have invested quite a bit of resources into maintaining the lake amenity. He said that an age restriction on the Legacy Parc residents is not enforceable. Approving this commercial component could create a commercial domino link along Ten Mile.

Nurendra Nagar, Blooming Day Childcare: Wanted to ensure that the same level of scrutiny and pressure is placed on this Applicant for his daycare proposal as what he went through thirteen years ago. He had to provide a feasibility study, address traffic, demonstrate Master Plan adherence and viable public good. He was asked how he would address a vacant building issue if he were to go out of business; he asked if he goes out of business in light of this proposed daycare being approved, would the City still consider him as the reason for his own demise?

Robert Lunsford, Leyland Circle: Opposed rezoning. He said that the proposal does not conform to the Master Plan and the residents do not recommend its approval.

Dr. Janet Schwamb, Bellingham: Said the proposal would destroy the tranquility and residential character of the southwest quadrant. She encouraged the Planning Commission to deny the request.

Troy Simmon, Acorn Trail: Did not see any need for the commercial element of this proposal. He did not want the additional traffic.

Doug Berg, Billenca Drive: Thought that there should the consistency in the application of the Master Plan. He was opposed to the Legacy Parc proposal.

John Tominsky, Cedarwood: Read a letter from the Echo Valley residents stating that the citizens should be able to trust the City in maintaining the integrity of the Master Plan.

Susan Gorz, Glenwood: Located to this area of the City because of the residential flair of the quadrant. She opposed the Legacy Parc proposal.

Greg Sorentino, Reeds Pointe: Opposed to the Legacy Parc proposal. He identified the floundering commercial property along Grand River. He did not think the Master Plan should be adjusted to reflect a change in the market condition.

Mike Bozimowski, Glenwood: He considered a change to the Master Plan a disguised taking of the land in the area. Adding density and commercial would reduce the value of existing homes.]

Member Gutman acknowledged the written correspondence:

Michael Adams, Langley Drive: Objects for traffic safety, property values and existing commercial reasons.

Benjamin and Voichita Boboc, Napier: Approves for the value of bringing construction jobs to Michigan. The proposal will be bring utilities to Napier Road.

John Kuenzel, Heartwood: Objects because the citizens should be able to trust that City officials will uphold the Master Plan.

Timothy O’Leary, Heartwood: Objects and wants the area kept residential.

Oliver Friese, Cedarwood: Objects because the land is zoned residential.

George Ricci, Woodham: Objects to commercial.

Theresa Ricci, Woodham: Objects to commercial.

Beatrice Lindoerfer, Woodham: Objects to revisions of the Master Plan.

Timothy Mandanski, Woodham: Objects to revisions of the Master Plan.

Clarice Ronk, Rushwood: Objects to zoning contrary to the Master Plan.

William McInnes, Forest Park: Objects to compromising the Master Plan.

Edward Papciak, Woodham: Objected to the idea of commercial along Ten Mile.

Mary Uhrig, Heartwood: Objected to a change in residential zoning.

Michael Uhrig, Heartwood: Objected to a threat to the natural environment.

Robert Weaver, Heartwood: Objected to more commercial.

Suzanne Weaver, Heartwood: Objected to more commercial.

Stacey Rose, Forest Park: Objected to commercial west of Beck Road.

Maria Muzzin, Heartwood: Objected to commercial and threat to peace and quiet.

Catherine Martin-Sheeran, Rushwood: Objected to a Master Plan violation and more commercial.

Thomas VanHorn, Heartwood: Objected for traffic, noise, and unwanted commercial reasons.

Regina VanHorn, Heartwood: Objected to change in Master Plan.

Jerome Ostalecki, Forest Park: Objected to change in Master Plan.

Patricia O’Leary, Heartwood: Objected to commercial.

Robert Faber, Woodham: Objected to commercial and change to Master Plan.

Leona Faber, Woodham: Objected to commercial.

Allen Hall, Forest Park: Objected to commercial.

Chikako Donahue, Cedarwood: Wanted to maintain peace and comfort of area.

Gala Schroeder, Heartwood: Objected to commercial.

Lindsay Schwartz, Forest Park: Objected to commercial.

Keith Weinbaum, Forest Park: Objected to commercial.

Joel Donahue, Cedarwood: Wished to maintain rural atmosphere.

Audry Uhrig, Heartwood: Does not approve of a mall.

Melissa Agosta, Rushwood: Objected to commercial on Ten Mile.

Paul Klain, Woodham: Wished to maintain residential zoning.

Heather Klain, Woodham: Objected to commercial.

Nancy Shaw, Lynwood: Objected to deviation from Master Plan.

Lester Fisher, Woodham: Objected to deviation from Master Plan.

Brenda Fisher, Woodham: Objected to commercial and additional traffic.

Diann Tymensky, Cedarwood: Satisfied with current zoning.

Margo Smith, Forest Park: Objected to commercial.

Carol Kuenzel, Heartwood: Opposed to commercial.

Jerry Smith, Forest Park: Objected to more commercial.

Laura Praehop, Crestwood: Objected to violations of the wetland regulations.

Jerome Praehop, Crestwood: Objected because of stormwater reasons.

Sneha Patel, Drakes Bay: Objected to higher density, traffic and commercial.

Raj Patel, Drakes Bay: Objected to commercial, traffic, property value reduction.

Carmela Langley, Fieldstone: Objected the violation of Master Plan and detriment to Island Lake.

Melanie Dunn, Samoset: Objected to the proposal destroying the Ten Mile viewshed.

Daniel Martin, Samoset: Objected for reasons of congestion, viewshed, reduced property values.

Elizabeth Cole, Reeds Pointe: Totally opposed to the rezoning request.

Rosina M. Degiulio, Woodham: Opposed to commercial in southwest quadrant.

Randall and Sherri Pender, Lynwood: Opposed to change in zoning for reasons of traffic, road construction and reduction in property value.

Steven Buchman, Drakes Bay: Vigorously objects to proposal.

Erin and Jeff Patrick, Leyland: Adamantly opposes the proposal.

Nancy Duke, Reeds Pointe: Considered the proposal a detriment to the environment.

Thomas Kent, Reeds Pointe: Objected for failure to follow Master Plan, wetland concerns, not recommended by the Planning Division and no need for commercial.

Fred Wood, Heartwood: Objected to more commercial.

Mark Rushton, Saybrook: Objected because of Master Plan violation, wetland destruction, damage to Island Lake and increased traffic concerns.

Nisha Rushton, Saybrook: Objected because of Master Plan violation, wetland destruction, unnecessary traffic and project out of character.

Mr. and Mrs. Stanley Rykwalder, Lynwood: Objected to commercial.

Courtric Arlock Charles and Billy Richards, Woodham: Objected to proposal.

Angeline Napierkowski, Woodham: Objected to change in zoning.

Mark Yergin, Drakes Bay: Objected to violation of Master Plan.

Alison Dolin, Glenwood: Objected strongly to commercial.

Robert and Rosemary Fleszar, Drakes Bay: Opposes change in Master Plan.

Wallace Wade, Drakes Bay: Objected to commercial in southwest quadrant, out of character for area, traffic burden and violation of Master Plan.

Roger Monforton, Greenwich: Formal objection from Greenwood Oaks 1 and 2 homeowners’ Association.

Fred and Janet Schwamb, Bellingham: Objected to change in the Master Plan.

Diane Byrne, Reeds Pointe: Objected to water quality degradation.

Diane and Jim Quinlan, Reeds Pointe: Objected to impacts to Island Lake.

Jeff and Lisa Morgan, Glenwood: Objected to violation of Master Plan.

Neha and Shankar Kiru, Leyland: Objected to change in southwest quadrant.

Larry Spillane: Objected because of abundance of commercial already, traffic and existence of other non-commercial entities in the southwest quadrant.

Jim Cai, Acorn Trail: Objected to zoning change.

Chris Hoffman, Peninsula: Objected for reasons of lake pollution and abundance of commercial.

Carleen and Robert Lunsford: Opposed to rezoning.

Erin and Jeff Patrick: Opposed to rezoning and threat to Island Lake.

S. Bhahwagar: Objected because of effect on property values, water draining to Island Lake, effect on environment.

Ki-seok Chang, Saybrook: Objected because a better plan is to keep commercial along Grand River and I-96.

Carmel Mizzi, Lynwood: Opposed to change in zoning.

John and Linda Heslop, Terra Del Mar: Objected to proposal because of commercial element, difference in character, traffic burden, stormwater discharge and violation of Master Plan.

Chuck and Carol Ryntz: Objected to commercial, violation of Master Plan and water quality issues.

Andrew Morrison, Shore Line: Objected for violation of Master Plan, water impact on Island Lake and deterioration of property values.

Michael Mulvaney, Billenca: Objected because it was not rural in character and for impact to wetlands.

Jeffrey Wagenberg, Drakes Bay: Objected because of Multiple Family Residential element, traffic congestion, increase in crime, impact to Island Lake, property devaluation, change to Master Plan and because the Links of Novi is an asset to the community.

Angela and Nick Shirer, Billenca: Objected to higher density, commercial element and decrease in property value.

Mouica Karapudi: Opposed to commercial.

James and Sara Coffelt, Thornbury: Opposed to additional traffic and adverse affect on property values.

Chair Pehrson closed the Public Hearing.

Member Cassis asked whether Singh Development filed any type of suggestion or objection during the last Master Plan update. Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth said she would have to review all of the notes from that process. A number of stakeholders were asked to provide comments. She didn’t remember specifically if active adult housing was discussed at that point. She said she could review the notes and figure that out.

Mr. Galvin said that Mr. Kahm was interviewed before the consultant study was published. Mr. Galvin asked that the minutes acknowledge the correspondence he sent to the City on February 25, 2008. The correspondence was written to City Council and was read aloud at the meeting. In summary it stated that Singh asked City Council not to distribute the Master Plan to the neighboring communities and utilities. It asked the City Council to remove the update from the Consent Agenda, and instead resend it to the Planning Commission to address two serious inconsistencies: Convenience commercial uses and active adult communities in the southwest quadrant. Specifically, the market analysis and needs assessment conducted by the Chesapeake Group shows that the southwest quadrant could support at least an additional 96,000 square feet of commercial services, yet the plan does not propose that any convenience commercial be built in the quadrant. Second, the assessment shows that Novi’s population of 65 and older will double from 8% to 16% in the next fifteen years, yet no provision for active adult communities is made in the Master Plan. This will be necessary to meet the need of this demographic.

Mr. Galvin said that the Singh group did present the plan substantially in the same form as it is at this meeting, in March of 2007. Mr. Galvin said the point was that the Singh group did object – because there is an exclusion of this use in the Master Plan and in the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. McBeth said that she did recall this information upon its being presented by Mr. Galvin. Ms. McBeth said Singh’s request was late in the process – in February and the plan was adopted in April. She said the stakeholders were invited to come speak to the City much earlier in the process. She said there was a discussion of senior housing during the Master Plan update. Recommendations were made by the Staff and the Consultants that senior housing could be considered and encouraged. Two particular pieces of property were cited for consideration of same. She said the Master Plan provides general guidelines for land uses in terms of residential, commercial or industrial. It doesn’t necessarily involve itself with specific multiple or single family residential uses. She didn’t think that either of the sites was favorably considered by the Planning Commission.

Member Cassis thought that global warming was not the main issues; rather, it was commercial. Mr. Galvin said he believed that was the primary focus of the opposition, though he couldn’t say for sure that was the case. He found it difficult to deal with the notion that people would oppose an active adult community in their neighborhood. If that is what people wish to do, then so be it. The notion of the commercial is integral to the community and he thought that, fairly put, is where the rub is. It is the idea that if recreation and all other amenities are going to be provided, among them for this type of development are commercial and service components. These uses would be additional to doctors’ services as well. The basic idea is just that – basic. Everything that folks need will be in walking or golf-cart distance. Therefore, these folks will be able to live within a neighborhood and a community.

Member Cassis confirmed with Ms. Kapelanski that there is an approval for a different plan already in place. She said the plan was for 320 [439] detached homes and maybe a clubhouse. Ms. Kapelanski did not think there was any commercial on that plan.

Member Cassis asked Ms. McBeth about the City-owned property. She said she has not heard what City Council’s position on the property is.

Member Cassis has heard what the complaints are regarding this project – property values, woodlands, wetlands, drainage, etc. Many were addressed before with the previous project. Member Cassis said he would address the other items. First, the request goes against the Master Plan. Member Cassis did not know until this meeting that Singh objected to the Master Plan update of last year.

Member Cassis wanted to give the Applicant the benefit of the doubt. He understood that Master Plans are made but can be changed. He thought that Singh should have been more forthcoming with their project during the last Master Plan update. At this time, Member Cassis would like clarification on Singh’s objection of last year. He wanted to see whether the City parcel is really necessary for this project. Mr. Galvin responded that the parcel was in fact necessary. Member Cassis wanted to know if the City was willing to sell this property according to Singh’s wishes. Finally, Member Cassis wanted to know if there was any leeway on the Applicant’s part to change the character of the commercial component. Member Cassis said he too was approaching the age where his home was becoming too large for his wife and him. He understood that these homes could be beneficial to many senior citizens. He looked at the area residents who object to too many items on this plan. He suggested that the plan review be postponed until more things could be explored by the Planning Commission.

Member Lynch said there were a number of components of the plan that he would like to better understand. He reviewed the history of the site. In October 2003 the Applicant petitioned Planning Commission for zoning similar to Island Lake. He believed that the Planning Commission approved that request. He thought the difference was that Island Lake’s density was about .8 or .9 dwelling units per acre. Yet, this Applicant is now seeking density in the range of 1.3 to 1.6 dwelling units per acre. He was concerned about making a hazardous situation out of the infrastructure, which in his opinion, was likely occurring. When the infrastructure was laid, it was based on the zoning at that time. He did not think the infrastructure could support this increase in density. He said that the plan calls for booster stations and pressure reducers; he was concerned about these design elements. Looking at the engineering review provided by City Engineer Rob Hayes, Member Lynch said that it appears that the fundamental infrastructure is not adequate to handle the increased development on this site.

Member Lynch said the Planning Commission has been consistent in their approvals; if this plan were to be approved, then every similar request for this area would have to be approved. He was concerned about whether the City had the infrastructure and who would pay to increase its function. He thought the taxpayer ends up paying for infrastructure improvements. He wondered if there was more information that could be provided – something that included a failure mode and an effects analysis of the possibilities. The weaknesses of the system could be identified and replacement options would surface. He looked at all of the additions proposed for the system, and he said sooner or later the pipe is going to burst if the pressure is increased under certain temperatures and vibes conditions.

Civil Engineer Ben Croy responded that these issues have been under review for quite a while. For this development, the Applicant would have to propose some improvements to the system – for both the water and the sewer. This might include pumps, pump stations, metro-main replacement, etc. It could be done so that this development could be built and the network could handle it. However, the concern is that in the future, if other properties are developed the same way, then the City will exceed capacity at that point. It is a real concern of the Engineering Department.

Member Lynch was concerned too. The local homeowners, along with every taxpayer in Novi, are going to have to pay for this upgrade.

Member Lynch said that the City doesn’t have the sewage capacity at this time. The system is at the upper end of the design tolerance. He thought the documents suggested another sixty percent increase that will have to be bought from somewhere. Who pays for that?

Civil Engineer Brian Coburn said the City is currently in negotiations to buy additional downstream capacity for the sewer system. Even without this development the City needs this additional capacity, to meet the City’s buildout needs. The Engineering Department reviews the Master Plan for Land Use and uses those density assumptions to create the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan. If there is a change in the Master Plan to accommodate increased density, the Engineering Department looks at that information, not the potential for increased density on adjacent parcels. He said his department has been working on this proposal with the Applicant for over a year.

Member Lynch said he would expect the City to offer the same things to the various developers. The logic is that there are RA zoned properties that could potentially be rezoned to R-1. This would create a significant burden on the taxpayer. Mr. Coburn said his department has not studied the "what if" scenarios of the Master Plan for Land Use.

Member Lynch said that based on the information he has reviewed, it would be criminal of him to vote for this project. He said that the engineering analysis states this proposal is going to be a problem.

Mr. Galvin reiterated that the Engineering Staff has been working with them for over a year. The specifics of the infrastructure have been identified, and he said that they have satisfied the Staff that the existing infrastructure with the proposed changes --and the cost borne by the Applicant – will satisfy the development on this site. As a matter of fact, Mr. Galvin said there is a differential impact based upon peak hours of usage between this active adult project and a normal Single Family Residential subdivision. This will diminish the capacity requirements. The Applicant is meeting the required capacity on the "as if" scenario. He did not think the Planning Commission’s conduct would be criminal or otherwise culpable based upon the infrastructure to approve this project.

Member Lynch said they would have to agree to disagree on this point. He had the information that was provided to him, and now he has Mr. Galvin’s words. He said he would base his opinion on the facts presented by the Staff.

Member Lynch asked Dr. Freeland about the discharge into the Novi Drain. Dr. John Freeland responded that his negative recommendation is based on the information they received, which was not a highly-developed plan. The Wetland Ordinance for Novi pertains to wetlands and watercourses (lakes, streams and drains, etc.). Island Lake is a short distance away. It is fed by the Lyon-Novi Drain, which runs along the east side of the subject property. This drain flows to Island Lake, and while he couldn’t speak for the dissolved load, the discharge looks pretty good in terms of turbidity – the water looks clear.

Dr. Freeland looked at page 16 of the plan, which depicted an array of stormwater detention basins along the perimeter of the property – the west, south, east and even one on the north side. These basins either flow to the forested wetlands that are located to the west, south and east. The detention basins are designed to drain at a certain maximum rate of .15 cfs per acre of drainage basin. He said that if those numbers were wrong, Mr. Croy could correct him. The basins are adding water to the high quality forested wetlands. They are considered a priority one natural features habitat. This area is part of larger natural forested land that extends down to Nine Mile. Forested wetlands will drown if too much water is directed into them. Without knowing the quantity of the water that will go in these wetlands, Dr. Freeland said he couldn’t comment on whether this plan would have an adverse impact.

Dr. Freeland said that it is easy to see the rainbow colors of an oil slick form on water after a storm. This proposal is a very short distance from these commercial parking lots to Island Lake. Chemicals used on lawns such as fertilizer and herbicides, and fluids leaking from cars, and things like this pose a threat to Island Lake unless there is a high degree of quality treatment. He has not seen the detail that describes a very sophisticated stormwater plan that might include recycling roof water or stormwater to provide onsite irrigation, advanced stormwater management and green-building techniques. Dr. Freeland said all of these options are feasible in this case. Without seeing this level of detail, Dr. Freeland could not give his recommendation on the plan.

Member Lynch said this is also where he is at; there is not enough detail on a number of items. He had to make a decision on the data he has reviewed, and he wanted to be fair to everybody. He said that his vote this evening would obviously have to be "no" based on the information that has been provided.

Member Lynch was concerned about the traffic. David Campbell from Birchler Arroyo represented the City’s Traffic Consultant. Member Lynch said that when the plan was originally proposed as 428 homes the recommendation was for Ten Mile to be widened to five lanes between Napier and Wixom roads, signalization at Ten Mile and Links of Novi entrance and at the Ten Mile intersections. Member Lynch asked whether the plan was still to widen Ten Mile to five lanes. He asked whether these calculations were correct, in light of the fact that he thought Oak Pointe was only 40% built and that the Wixom interchange was previously under construction. Member Lynch said that there was a big argument regarding the traffic study – the data contained therein are irrelevant so the output becomes irrelevant. Mr. Campbell said with this proposal, the Applicant is proposing a three-lane road along Ten Mile, which is a continuous center left turn lane from Wixom Road to a point west of their most westerly driveway. The Applicant proposes two new traffic lights at two of their driveways – one opposite Del Mar (on the north side of Ten Mile), and one at their main boulevard driveway. The Applicant proposes to add a left turn phase at the existing Wixom signal.

Mr. Campbell said that the traffic review does question some of the methodology used in the study. His company is not comfortable with the methodology used to collect data or their trip generation forecast. This number has been significantly underestimated. Mr. Campbell questions the study’s trip-distribution methodology (how the study predicts which driveways will be used for exiting and entering the community). These things are all significant because they will ultimately impact the site improvements proposed as part of this development. Their intent is to work with this Applicant to ensure that the mitigation proposed is sufficient. Will it address the additional traffic? Are the traffic lights in the proper location? Will they be phased correctly? Because they take issue with the study’s methodology, they don’t feel they can make a recommendation based on this study.

Member Lynch wondered whether additional lanes would have to be added to Wixom, but felt that the question couldn’t be answered because the data are not present. Mr. Campbell said there are three things that have to be addressed first: They don’t agree with the data collection method, trip estimation or trip distribution.

Member Lynch said that the Applicant’s comment that there is no active adult community does not take into consideration Fox Run, parts of Island Lake or the Enclave near Twelve Oaks. If the category of "Senior Housing" includes residents over the age of 55, what would be the City’s census or study of this component in Novi? He wondered if this was an appropriate issue to study first before considering this proposal. Ms. Kapelanski responded that there are several developments within the City that are targeted toward seniors. These range from assisted living type facilities to communities targeted for people 65 and over. She was not aware of any Single Family Residential targeted as active adult communities. She said that the City would have to dig through the records to come up with data on communities housing residents primarily over 55. It could probably be tabulated through the census and development data.

Member Lynch was intrigued by the comment regarding the aging population. He said there really is a need for older adults to live. He disagreed with the statement that the City doesn’t have anything or doesn’t have enough. This City can’t be everything to everybody in every part of the City. He said he would like all of this additional information before making a decision. Is Novi above or below the national average? Is there adequate senior housing?

Member Lynch said he thought that everyone was struggling with the current economic situation. One of the base assumptions has been that things aren’t going to change; he fundamentally disagreed. The economy is bad but it’s not going to be like this forever. He said this current condition could be compared to 1974 – the economy did come back then and there was quite a rise in housing prices. He did not buy into the thought that the economy is bad and it’s never going to get better. Things will get better.

Member Lynch thought that the original proposal of Quail Hollow [Legacy Parc] was a beautiful proposal. The City and City Council were quite generous in giving a density of 439 units and a clubhouse. He did believe that there will be a demand for that project. It is unfortunate that no one is buying right now and people who want to move can’t because they can’t sell their homes. He thought this would change.

Member Lynch said he also challenged the Applicant’s comment that there are no other communities in Novi for senior housing. There are a lot of questions without a lot of fact. It would be nice to have this information before having to make a decision. If there is a vote at this meeting, Member Lynch would have to vote "no" based on the information that has been provided.

Member Greco appreciated the discussion and questions from the other Planning Commission members. He felt however, that he had enough facts on which to base his decision. The presentations on paper and given orally by Mr. Galvin were outstanding in describing a proposal for something to do with this land. But, the attorney did say it right when he suggested the question might be, "Does the City need this now on this property?" Member Greco said that is the question, and the follow-up questions is, "Should the City do this on this property?" There are really two aspects to consider. He knew that the commercial element keeps coming up because that is the easiest component on which the public can readily say that the area is supposed to be residential and therefore they are against the commercial. Really, the two questions are about commercial and density. When the Master Plan was reviewed as recently as it was, Member Greco had a difficult time re-visiting the decision made to maintain the more rural nature of the southwest quadrant.

Member Greco said the senior housing issue came up during that Master Plan update process. Whether the Planning Commission was right or wrong at the time, they chose to put that consideration off for a little bit. That issue does become important in the consideration of where senior housing should be placed. There may be a need for senior housing. The Planning Commission took a look at the issue and still decided to leave the southwest quadrant the way it currently is. That is something that he thought the City should stick to since the recent Master Plan decision is so close in time to this meeting. He thought that the residents and the developer should understand this. Now, this may be subject to review in the future but just because there was a recommendation that the City might need more senior housing, and somebody then comes up with a proposal a year later, this doesn’t mean that the City has to jump on the project because it may be wrong for the particular area or for the vision that has been laid out in the City’s Master Plan.

Member Greco said that studies are exactly that. There will be assumptions made. There are some aspects that will be hypothetical. There is no doubt in Member Greco’s mind that, "If you build it, they will come." This doesn’t mean that it should be built or that people in the area want it built. While he was sure that people would in fact come to this establishment, the residents in the area clearly don’t want it. It is also clear that it isn’t necessary, although it could be theoretically supported by scientific data, population studies, etc. Based upon the information provided to Member Greco, he said he would not be supporting this request.

Member Meyer thanked the residents who came to the meeting or responded by mail. He said that one of the greatest hurdles there is that one must accept is change. He also thanked Singh Development for its excellent presentation. Some of the units were stunning. Nonetheless, he felt the two remaining issues were density and the commercial component. He said that the original proposal started at 330 units and now it is at about 700 units. There are number of already built units in the City that are unoccupied. The residents of the southwest quadrant do not want commercial, and he felt that it was appropriate to listen to the people.

Member Meyer thanked the Planning Staff for its recommendations and suggestions. He felt there was sufficient information on which to make a decision.

Member Gutman said that Singh has put together a first-class project, which they always do. It is very attractive but it is not, in Member Gutman’s opinion, the right project based on a few reasons. It is not consistent with the Master Plan. The commercial is an issue, and although some of the proposed uses are important for an active adult community, there is a daycare center on the site. Since it was opened up in a March 2007 meeting by Singh, Mr. Kahm himself said that there would be very few children in the development. Member Gutman was trying to reconcile the fact that there is a desire to put a daycare on this site, and how that impacts an active adult community. He struggled with that concept. In general, Member Gutman said the commercial is not consistent with the Master Plan.

Member Gutman continued that the density is also a concern of his. The potential environmental impacts are also a serious concern. The traffic impact is also a serious concern.

Member Larson added that his concerns have already been stated by the other Planning Commission members and he too, would not be supporting the request.

Chair Pehrson said that there wasn’t a lot of information provided in the review, but what was provided did concern him and he thought perhaps they did not have enough information. He had a problem in the past with the density of Quail Hollow [Legacy Parc]. His concerns today are about the density and the commercial element which is contrary to the Master Plan. He was not a big fan, but he thought that the City bent over backward to help Singh find a way to take the density from one level to an additional level, which made it fiscally better for them.

Chair Pehrson did not think this proposal is in response to the residents’ needs, as it relates to the questions about whether this is the right time, the right place or answering a need. This is not consistent with what the residents want and the ink isn’t even dry on the most recent Master Plan update. The Planning Commission did review a study that looked at the commercial aspect. This is not the place for any of that.

Chair Pehrson was concerned about the utilities. He was not at all happy with the benefits of the PRO at this time, as they stand right now. Five of the eight items listed are actually requirements for the development of the site. The 76 acres for the parkland is really a key. He said that relative to the Ordinance, he did not see enough of a community benefit with those PRO additions that would persuade him to make a different determination. Chair Pehrson paraphrased from the Ordinance that relative to the PRO Agreement, it is up to the Applicant to say that there is a greater need in the public interest and it outweighs any non-conforming zoning issues. Chair Pehrson did not think that this mission has been accomplished. He was concerned about the issues that have already been addressed as well, and at this time he was not in position to approve this request.

Moved by Member Meyer, seconded by Member Lynch:

Ms. Kapelanski asked whether Member Cassis’ question regarding the City’s ownership of the one parcel could become part of the motion, i.e., "The City has not yet indicated a willingness to include City property in this development proposal." The maker and seconder of the motion agreed to the addition.

Moved by Member Meyer, seconded by Member Lynch:

Chair Pehrson called for a two-minute break, then called the meeting back to order.

Consideration of the request of the City of Novi for Preliminary Site Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 27, south of Ten Mile and east of Taft Road in the R-4, One Family Residential District. The subject property is approximately 6.5 acres and the Applicant is proposing to construct a small park on the existing Fuerst Farm site.

Planner Kristen Kapelanski described the project. The property is surrounded by Ten Mile, The Rossi Building and Single Family Residential to the north, Taft Road and Single Family Residential to the west, the library to the east and the high school to the south. It is zoned R-4 and is bordered by residential and office zonings. The Master Plan indicates Public Uses for this property, and Single Family Residential, Public Uses and Education Facility for the surrounding sites. There are no regulated natural features on this site.

The proposed plan relocates the Novi Township Hall and designates areas for landscaping, sculptures, and an amphitheatre in the southeast. There are four Ordinance deviations on this plan: The eastern and southern setbacks are not met by the Township Hall. The illumination and cut-off standards are not met. Staff is in support of these requests. The Landscape Review indicated that one Landscape Waiver is necessary for the street trees required along Ten Mile. All other reviews noted minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

Brian Coburn of the Engineering Department addressed the Planning Commission. He introduced Tracie Ringle, Communications Specialist from Parks and Recreation.

Member Gutman thought this was a wonderful amenity for the residents of Novi.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Lynch:

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Lynch:

There were no Consent Agenda removals.

Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth said that the Planning Commission members were provided with the APA brochures regarding the 2009 National Conference which will be held in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Money was budgeted for one or more Planning Commission members to attend. She asked anyone who was interested in attending to let her know.

Chair Pehrson said that with the loss of Member Brian Burke to City Council and Wayne Wrobel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, it may be time for the Planning Commission to review the Committee selections to determine where adjustments to the memberships are needed. Whether Member Wrobel does or does not return to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission will still have to consider an appointment of someone to become the Commission’s Vice-Chair, as Member Wrobel has indicated that he may wish to relinquish that role even if he returns.

Member Cassis said that the Planning Commission has had a recent challenging review regarding a large church being placed in a strongly residential area. It occurred to him that perhaps they should review the standards and consider whether parameters on how large an edifice can be in a residential area should be discussed. Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth said that at this time there are no size limitations, other than the size being limited by the site’s size and corresponding setbacks, parking and landscaping standards, etc.

Member Cassis wondered whether the Planning Commission would like to consider this issue and perhaps hold a Public Hearing on the matter. Chair Pehrson suggested that the review could be sent to the Implementation Committee.

Ms. McBeth suggested that Staff work with the City Attorney’s office to first provide communication on the issue.

Member Greco suggested that this might be a valid step, to first determine the legality of the consideration. City Attorney Kristin Kolb agreed that it might be a good idea to start with this step.

Chair Pehrson said that traditionally the Implementation Committee has reviewed issues like this prior to its coming before the entire Planning Commission. He agreed that the City Attorney could provide them with a preliminary communication on this matter so that the Planning Commission can then determine what course of action to take.

Member Cassis clarified that the need for this consideration stems from the fact that religious orders have become more complex than just building churches.

Member Meyer said this issue comes from his professional field and he, too, believes Member Cassis’ point is well made. Religious orders would all move into stadiums if they could. He agreed that there should be some guidelines particularly in the residential area. He recalled that years ago the idea was that Meadowbrook and its surrounds would be the area for churches. The City’s needs have since grown beyond those parameters.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Moved by Member Lynch,

The meeting adjourned at 10:00 PM.

MON 01/19/09 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

MON 01/26/09 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 01/28/09 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 02/02/09 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 02/10/09 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 02/11/09 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 02/16/09 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

TUE 02/17/09 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 02/25/09 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

Transcribed by Jane L. Schimpf

Customer Service Representative

January 23, 2009 Signature on File

Date approved: February 25, 2009 Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date