No one from the audience wished to speak.

Member Gutman stated that they have one piece of general correspondence from John Kuenzel. Member Gutman summarized Mr. Kuenzel’s letter. Mr. Kuenzel is from Heartwood in Novi and has been monitoring the zoning issues for the past several years. Mr. Kuenzel had the following observations that he wanted to share with the Planning Commission regarding the proposed suburban low-rise: He has noticed that whenever there is a change in zoning laws, the density is increased and the property owner gains wealth and adjacent property owners can be negatively affected by various aspects of that. The city has thrived off commercial growth for many years and it appears to be driven to expand development possibilities to increase the tax base revenue. Suburban low-rise would allow office development on the Bosco property and other lands that would be switched from single-family to suburban low-rise. There are already volumes of vacant office buildings in the area negating the need for more office zoning. More office zoning would negatively affect those established office and commercial property values. The speed and frequency of proposed Master Plan changes has accelerated and at some point Planning Commissioners need to be willing to control and contain expansionism plans. Mr. Kuenzel would have been here today had it not been for his charity work.

Chair Pehrson stated that a Master Plan and Zoning Committee meeting was held recently and he thinks the staff has done a tremendous job in bringing things together for the community to review in the near future. Chair Pehrson complimented the Committee on the good work that has been done.

Member Cassis asked Planner Spencer if the public would be invited to participate in the Master Plan process.

Planner Spencer confirmed there would be a public participation aspect of the Master Plan update.

Member Meyer stated that the Implementation Committee has met, and there are no updates at this time. There is discussion regarding various issues and the Committee will be getting back to the Planning Commission on those issues.

Deputy Director McBeth stated that the City Council approved a request that the Planning Commission considered recently for a Section 9 Waiver for an amendment to the façade at the Borders Building at the Novi Town Center. At the next Planning Commission meeting on September 30th, a Public Hearing has been scheduled for the Wetland Ordinance and the Wetland Map Updates. The Environmental Committee has reviewed these items and has recommended approval. The Fall for Novi event is scheduled for a week from Saturday and staff should be able to collect additional comments regarding the wetland updates from that meeting. Deputy Director McBeth also stated that information has been placed on the City’s webpage and a table has been placed in the lobby of the Civic Center to solicit comments from the public regarding the updated wetland ordinance and revised map.

Moved by Member Lynch, seconded by Member Gutman:

Planner Spencer stated that Evangelista Development has submitted a revised site plan associated with Zoning Map Amendment 18.682. The rezoning petition proposes a change from R-A, Residential Acreage with a Planned Unit Development/P.U.D. to RM-1, Low Density, Low Rise, Multiple Family, Residential with a Planned Rezoning Overlay/P.R.O.

This property is located on the southwest corner of Fourteen Mile Road and Novi Road. The site plan was submitted as a final site plan and most of the review letters refer to this as a final site plan. After the reviews were completed, the Planning Staff determined that the changes were substantial and additional details were needed to make this a true final site plan. Changes to the plan also required a revised wetland permit. The plan has now been brought back to the Planning Commission for a Revised Concept Plan, a Revised Preliminary Site Plan, Special Land Use, Woodland Permit, Storm Water Management Plan, and Wetland Permit approvals.

Previously, City Council granted tentative approval to the Concept Plan and rezoning following a recommendation from the Planning Commission. The applicant has been in discussions with the City and the City attorney’s office and is in the final stages of completing a PRO Agreement for this project.

The applicant is now proposing a somewhat smaller 76 unit, 91 bed, 56,000 square foot convalescent home. The applicant would also like to limit the number of beds to 110, even though the site plan shows this as 91 bed development. A majority of the rooms in the development could accommodate more than one bed and the applicant has provided enough parking for additional beds. The previous submission set the maximum bed limit at 186 beds and the current proposal is considerably less than that.

The Planning Commission conditionally approved the preliminary site plan for this project in September, 2008 and subject to City Council approval of the rezoning and Concept Plan.

The following changes were made to the plan since the previous Preliminary Site Plan submission:

• The square footage was reduced from about 62,000 square feet to 57,000 square feet.
• The building now has a bow to it and angle to it.
• The number of rooms were reduced from 93 to 76.
• The bed count was reduced from 186 to 110.
• The building height did increase slightly from 36 feet to approximately 40 feet. As viewed from the road, this will have little impact on the neighboring properties as the eave height will remain the same.
• The building length increased from 321 feet to 365 feet.
• Some of the setback deviations changed slightly because the required setback is based on building length. The setback from the residential properties to the west remains the same.
• The applicant did remove access from Fourteen Mile Road because there was concern about traffic impacts onto the two lanes of Fourteen Mile Road. The two access drives on Novi Road remain.
• The previously approved screen wall along the western property line has been reduced in height from six feet to four and one-half feet. Planning staff has recommended the applicant retain a six foot height for the screen wall and the applicant has agreed to alter the plans to reflect that, as indicated in their response letter.
• The plan also shows a reduction in the number of evergreens to be planted between the proposed screen wall and residential property from 200 to 117. Per Planning Staff’s recommendation, the applicant has agreed to install 200 evergreens, as originally proposed.
• The number of parking spaces has been slightly increased and some parking spaces have been relocated to the north side of the building.

The Planning Staff believes these changes are minor and in keeping with the generally intent of the tentatively approved Preliminary Site plan. The applicant has also agreed to all the minor changes requested by the Staff and Consultants. The revised Ordinance deviations will be incorporated into the PRO Agreement. The parking lot drive on the east side along Novi Road had a 15 foot setback that has been reduced to 10 feet. Originally when this was approved, the Planning Commission granted a Section 9 Waiver. After further research, the Section 9 Waiver was not needed. There were some prior issues with some of the materials that were going to be substituted. Our Façade Consultant, Doug Necci received a façade board late in the process. Facade Consultant Necci is here tonight to address this briefly and the applicant has agreed to go back to the original proposed materials.

Mr. Marcus Evangelista, representing the applicant Evangelista Development, came forward. The project engineers are from Nowak & Fraus, and the project architect is from Progressive Associates. Both are here as well and are available for any questions.

Applicant Evangelista stated that Mr. Spencer provided an accurate and complete description of the project and the reason this project is back is because the shape of the building has been redesigned to make the building more attractive, smaller in size, and to ultimately reduce the impact on the property. The key change that was made was to give the building more of a curve shape to enhance curb appeal and create more green space by the entrance, to give it a more inviting atmosphere for visitors walking into the entrance and create a less institutional look.

The driveway from Fourteen Mile Road has been removed and replaced with a berm and additional landscaping to alleviate any concerns of headlights shining across the street toward the residents. This should also reduce the congestion of traffic in that area. The dumpster originally faced the road and is in the same location, except that it has been turned into the building so it is more attractive when driving by.

Maple Manor is a family-owned and operated business. The owners are Mr. Evangelista’s parents who are practicing doctors and have been for over 30 years.

The Applicant explained that he was very involved with the business on a day-to-day basis and that they currently operate Maple Manor of Wayne, which is by the airport. Last year Maple Manor of Wayne was ranked as the number one facility rated by Medicare and received a five star rating and had a perfect survey with zero citations as well as Jayco credited, which is a requirement for hospitals and voluntary for nursing homes. Maple Manor became Jayco credited just to demonstrate their commitment to the highest quality of health care.

The applicant respectfully asked for the Planning Commission’s recommendation of approval and as the new design is more attractive and does have a lower impact on the property. In addition, the project will enhance the City’s tax base and add over 100 new jobs to the community. Maple Manor will also serve a growing need for long-term services in the area. The applicant hopes this project will be positive and add value to the community.

No one from the audience wished to speak at the public hearing.

Member Gutman summarized the correspondence for the record.

• Mildred Adams on Mariner Drive in Walled Lake approves of the project and believes society has the responsibility for caring for seniors.

• John Freewal of Centennial Drive supports the change and that it does not allow the owner to build condominiums or apartments.

• John Grissman of Centennial Drive approves of the project.

• Ellen Wardawel of Lake Village Drive, Walled Lake also approves of the project.

• Jane West of Canterbury in Novi approves of the project.

• James and Carol Storch approve of the project and feel there is a need for it in the community.

• Russell Courtney of Canterbury Drive in Novi approves of the project.

• Phyllis Abbott objects to the project and believes there is a tremendous amount of residential in the neighboring area within a 1 ½ mile radius and feels that is enough.

• Joseph Spezeta of Arrowhead Drive in Novi objects to it and believes the wetlands are in danger and that the water plain will change. He does not want the trees removed, and believes there are other places to build in Novi.

• Barbara Ziwacki of Mariner Drive objects and enjoys what is left of the undeveloped land in the neighborhood and believes that there is too much traffic already.

• Melanie Johnson of Neptune Drive in Walled Lake objects. She is worried about the noise due to medical emergencies and wildlife preservation.

• Roxanne Cherry of Mariner of Walled Lake disapproves.

• Dorothy & Adrian Sallas object and believe there will be more traffic by an elementary school and loss of trees and greenery.

• Ilene Chow of Jasper Ridge of Novi objects.

• Metra Deadgar of Livingston Drive objects for the increased traffic.

• Sandra Airhart of Neptune Drive in Walled Lake objects and thinks the property should not be ruined with development. She wondered why aren’t we using an area that has been developed already. She is concerned about traffic noise and pollution and would like to recommend other vacant areas.

• Sam Compton of Inland Court of Walled Lake objects and does not want to disturb the wetlands, lakes or trees and does not want to develop on one of the last natural resources.

• Justin Nell of Mariner Drive of Walled Lake objects to the request due to it being bladed by strip malls, condominiums, and apartments in that area.

• Ilene Kelton of Independence Drive in Novi objects because of the wetlands.

• Della Cullins objects and believes there is a surplus of multi-family residential, creating a downward spiral in maintenance and value.

Chair Pehrson closed the Public Hearing and turned it over to the Planning Commission for their consideration.

Member Lynch stated that he did like the changes and feels that this fits into the character of that neighborhood and was glad to see the applicant agreed to maintaining the originally proposed wall height since this would be a big concern to the neighbors. Member Lynch did not think that the traffic will be as adversely affected as was represented in some of the letters received. Member Lynch said he had experience with their other facility and knew what it was like before the Evangelista’s took it over and that he was comfortable with the Evangelista family. Member Lynch stated that five stars is the highest rating you can get and is a prestigious award to receive. This will be an asset to Novi. After looking at the demographics of the area, there is a need for this type of service. Member Lynch appreciates the work that has gone into this and working with the staff and he will support this project.

Chair Pehrson asked the applicant if the screen wall in the back of the property went all the way back to the dumpster.

The applicant stated that at the request of the Planning Staff, the wall in question has been extended 35 feet to the south so it will coincide with the line of the dumpster wall and completely screen the parking area.

Chair Pehrson confirmed the wall would screen the parking from the houses behind the property.

Member Baratta is in favor of the project and was pleased to see that the applicant has been sensitive to the adjacent properties and the issues that were brought up. The applicant did go back to the 200 evergreens originally proposed, as well as proposing additional landscaping, extending the screen wall, and providing adequate screening for the dumpster. The traffic issue was addressed by eliminating the 14 Mile Road access point. Member Baratta appreciates the façade adjustments made to make the building more inviting, rather than more of a medical building.

Member Cassis recalled the project was previously before the Planning Commission and he had approved it then, when the applicant was proposing a larger building. Now the applicant has reduced the number of units from 93 to 76, redesigned the building and limited the size. This is an improvement for the site and its capacity and should please the surrounding residents and people in the area. Member Cassis stated that he had concerns about the capacity of the utilities and the emergencies in that area and asked the City Engineer if there was a problem.

City Engineer Ivezaj asked Member Cassis which utilities he was referring to.

Member Cassis asked if the north side of the City was getting a concentration of facilities that would require a higher level of City services. Would there be a strain on emergency services in that area?

City Engineer Ivezaj stated emergency services was not his area of expertise but as far as public utilities were concerned, he could see no problems with what the applicant is proposing.

Deputy Director McBeth stated that the Fire Marshal always looks at the plans presented and he would certainly bring those items to the attention of the Planning Commission as well as the Fire Chief if there was a concern about providing emergency fire and medical services to that area. The reviews have not identified any concerns.

Member Cassis stated that he wanted his comments on record that this development is very important and it is a good project for that area of the City.

Member Gutman stated that he wanted to join with his fellow Planning Commissioners in commending the applicant for the changes that have been made They all are very positive and it is an excellent development for the community.

Motion made by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Lynch:

Motion made by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Lynch:

Motion made by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Lynch:

Motion made by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Lynch:

Motion made by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Lynch:

Motion made by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Lynch:

Deputy Director McBeth stated that the Community Relations Department is working on putting together dates for the following year’s Planning Commission meetings. A draft calendar highlighting proposed Planning Commission meeting days in green has been included in the packets. Planning Commission meetings are Wednesday evenings and usually the second and fourth Wednesday of each month. There is some variation due to holidays and other scheduling that shifted those meeting dates at the end of the year, and as in the past, one meeting has been held in December.

Last year, under the direction of Chair Pehrson, staff was asked to establish regular meeting dates for the Planning Commission Committees and those have been provided in the memo as well. Committees meeting early in the year are the Administrative Liaison, Budget and Planning Studies and Capital Improvements Committees.

The Environmental Committee is now the Walkable Novi Committee and has been meeting at the discretion of the larger group. Those meetings are now held just prior to the Parks and Recreation Commission meetings each month.

The Implementation Committee has had a few meetings this year. Staff is suggesting meetings prior to the first Planning Commission meeting in May and November and as needed. Staff’s suggestion for the Master Plan and Zoning Committee is that they alternate Wednesdays from the full Planning Commission meetings while the Master Plan for Land Use is still under review and then meet as needed after that. The Rules Committee could perhaps meet once a year in June and the Zoning Board of Appeals would meet as their schedule dictates.

There was a consensus of the Commission to accept the proposed 2010 Planning Commission Calendar.

There were no Consent Agenda Removals.

Planner Spencer explained that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee has been reviewing the City’s Master Plan for Land Use for the past several months. The Committee has reviewed the City-wide population, housing, retail, industrial, and office space forecasts as well as draft maps and staff and consultant reports on many aspects of the Master Plan.

The Committee reviewed the Master Plan Future Land Use Map designations for the entire City, section by section and identified and studied in detail three study areas: 1) The Special Planning Project Area One near the southeast corner of Novi Road and Ten Mile Road; 2) The Grand River Avenue and Beck Road Study Area, which is located adjacent to Grand River Avenue just east of Beck Road; and 3) The Eleven Mile Road and Beck Road Study Area which straddles Eleven Mile Road between Wixom and Beck Roads. Those are the areas that the Committee has studied in further detail.

Based on the Committee’s suggestions and comments from the City’s administrative staff, staff prepared a set of draft displays and draft alternatives for the potential Master Plan Amendment. These were presented to the Master Plan and Zoning Committee and the Committee has agreed that these suggestions by staff are acceptable for discussion purposes.

These would be presented as displays at public events. Currently staff is looking at two public events: The Fall for Novi event, which is a week from Saturday and an undetermined date for a Master Plan open house. In addition staff will post this material on the City’s webpage in conjunction with the survey which staff will hand out at the events and post on the webpage.

The first graphic is draft alternatives for Special Planning Project Area One. The top narrative and map are the 2008 Master Plan for Land Use designation. The area that was of most concern in this study area was an area that was previously identified as Special Planning Project Area. So, it was left to future studies to determine the appropriate use of the study area. Alternative One proposes that the area be split amongst office and light industrial uses and it basically extends the line of the current Master Plan designation. Alternative Two proposes to designate that area for community commercial uses, which would include supermarkets and restaurants, but no drive-throughs.

The next area was the Eleven Mile Road and Beck Road Study Area. Again, the top set of text and maps is the current Master Plan. The current Master Plan shows an area outlined in green that is City Park and proposed to stay City Park. In the other alternatives, the yellow areas are single-family residential and an area that looks white on the overhead is an area for educational facilities.

In Alternative One, the areas north of Eleven Mile Road that was single–family residential is proposed to be suburban low-rise. That is a new Master Plan proposed designation that would include attached single-family, multiple–family residential, community service, human care and office uses when developed under a set of use and design guidelines to keep the residential character of the area and to minimize the effect the transitional uses would have on nearby single-family properties. The reason that the word transitional is used here is because the Committee discussed that within about a half mile of Grand River Avenue in this area, there is a fairly intense set of uses, including Providence Hospital, the Central Park Place Apartments, Target and Sam’s Club with industrial uses in-between. These uses extend about a half mile south of Grand River Avenue. The next three-quarters of a mile are the areas that are open for discussion and that the City’s current Master Plan shows single-family residential. Going beyond that three- quarters of a mile, are the areas that are predominantly outside of the study area and they are mostly developed with single-family residential homes. So this new designation would be a transitional area between the higher intensity uses along Grand River Avenue and the single-family residential areas to the south.

These are alternatives for discussion to solicit public input. These are not necessarily the final recommendations of the Committee or the recommendations of the Planning Commission on the Master Plan. After collecting public input on these, they could be the amendments recommended, but maybe not. The public comment process is an important feature of the Master Plan process.

The only difference between Alternative One and Alternative Two is there is a piece of property known as the Bosco property which is located on the southwest corner of Beck Road and Eleven Mile Road. That area in Alternative Two is also designated for suburban low-rise. Now associated with this are also some changes to the residential density plan in the Master Plan. Residential densities are assigned throughout the Master Plan to all the areas that carry a residential designation, whether it is a multiple-family or single-family designation and also in areas that are master planned for park uses, utility uses and public uses. In case those areas cease to be viable for those types of uses, there is an underlying residential density, if the properties were proposed to be developed as single-family residential.

Again, the top set of maps show the existing Master Plan residential densities. The area in the northwest corner of the study area is master planned for 4.8 dwelling units per acre. South of that, the park property is master planned for 0.8 dwelling units per acre. To the west of the line which divides the ITC utility corridor in half, the master plan currently shows 1.65 dwelling units per acre and also the area south of Eleven Mile Road at that density.

Alternative One, to go hand-in-hand with the proposed suburban low-rise use area, has 7.3 dwelling units an acre assigned to those areas and an underlying residential density of 3.3 dwelling units per acre under the City park property. South of Eleven Mile Road staff has listed for discussion at 4.8 or 3.3 dwelling units per acre on the northern portion of the properties and on the southern portion of the properties leaving it the same at 1.65 dwelling units per acre. That particular piece of property is currently owned by Novi Public Schools and the City entertained a land exchange and purchase agreement with the school district to place a public park on that property. The southern portion of the property has extensive amount of wetlands and very little developable land. Also, given the proximity to the single-family development to the south of that property, it was felt that keeping it at the same 1.65 dwelling units per acre would probably be appropriate.

Moving onto Alternative Two, the only change in density is proposed for the Bosco property at the southwest corner of Eleven Mile Road and Beck Road. Staff assigned a density of 7.3 dwelling units per acre consistent with the other properties that were included in the suburban low-rise designation.

Draft amendments to the text, including a description of this suburban low-rise and also some goals, objectives and implementation strategies to ensure that if this type of use area is created, it would have a new zoning district designation and include some general guidelines to keep it residential appearing and so it will not negatively affect the single-family homes in the area.

The next study area was the Grand River Avenue and Beck Road Study Area. Currently, the entire area is master planned for office and this office designation has been discussed briefly with the Master Plan and Zoning Committee, possibly separating the area into three different office use designations. Staff does not have anything prepared for that tonight.

Alternative One, as presented to the Committee, explored the potential for a retail service overlay on the office area. The overlay has been used for the Expo area. In this case, it would provide an additional basket of uses that would be designated in that area and retain an office designation, but also allow retail services. In those retail services, staff has included a definition that would say that, this land is designated with an office designation and an additional retail services overlay designation to include retail service uses that service employees and visitors to an office use area would use, including, but not limited to fuel stations, car washes, restaurants including drive-throughs and convenience stores in these office use areas. This is what staff has presented and the Committee has accepted for Alternative One.

Alternative Two uses a more conventional approach to the Master Plan and depicts these as community commercial. Our community commercial use designation includes a basket of uses that include grocery stores, hardware stores, restaurants and gas stations with special use permits. The Committee and Staff have proposed some text language for discussion with goals, objectives and implementation strategies that go along with that retail service overlay concept. The information for that study area also includes a proposed Grand River Avenue and Beck Road Study Area Transportation Plan. This would include the concept of having two new collector roads to service the corner areas in these associated properties. This would help reduce traffic impacts on Beck Road and Grand River Avenue. This plan also includes a retail drive system on the fringes of these proposed retail overlay areas. Staff feels it is important that if any development becomes retail on these properties that measures are in place and the plans are in place to ask for connections that loop around to relieve choke points on Beck Road or Grand River Avenue.

Staff thinks it would not be in the City’s best interest to have some form of commercial retail development that only had access to Beck Road, as an example. There is not a lot of room between Grand River Avenue and Beck Road and I-96 and there is not a lot of room for access between Grand River Avenue and Providence’s entrance to the south. These concepts would help control that and reduce the impacts.

The next element that the Committee and Staff worked on was the transportation element. About 80% of this proposed text is related to non-motorized access. The City of Novi’s Walkable Novi Committee worked on draft language with staff to present goals, objectives and implementation strategies to further goals and to promote healthy lifestyles in the City of Novi with non-motorized transportation. The Committee has accepted those as talking points to put into these alternatives. Staff has also discussed with the Committee including something to promote mass rapid transit in the area. In recent times, the region of Detroit and the metropolitan region has discussed many different forms of rapid transit and linking the metropolitan area with rapid transit. Those plans do not specifically link Novi to those concepts that have been discussed. This would give a starting point for including Novi in those discussions because the Committee and staff feel that this would be an important amenity if rapid transit developed in the Detroit area, the City would want to be a part of it. Novi is an important player in the area and has a lot to offer to metropolitan Detroit. This is just some opening language to open the door for those kinds of discussions.

The last concept that staff has prepared at this time is a public and private parks concept. This was not included in the Planning Commission packets. The Master Plan and Zoning Committee has worked with staff’s help at adjusting the park layer or park map that shows in the Master Plan to more accurately reflect the reality of what is out there today. It includes adjustments to private parks where new developments have come on board since the map and the current Master Plan was produced from older graphics and adopted in 2004. That is all the items that are prepared at this time. Staff is still working on some of the graphics and the survey with the Committee. There are a few other concepts being floated through the Committee and there are possibly some other areas in the City where a retail overlay could be appropriate in an office designated area, as an example. We hope to finalize those shortly with the Committee.

Planner Spencer stated that the one thing the staff is looking for from the Planning Commission on this is the Planning Commission’s consensus on this to take this forward for discussion at public forums. We are still working on some of the graphics and the survey with the Committee. There are a few other concepts being considered with the Committee. There are possibly some other areas in the city where a retail overlay could be appropriate in an office designated area as an example and we hope to finalize those shortly with the committee.

Planner Spencer did state that the one thing that staff was looking for from the Planning Commission is your consensus on this to take this forward for discussion at these public forums.

Chair Pehrson thanked Planner Spencer for his presentation and work on the Master Plan Alternatives.

Motion made by Member Meyer, seconded by Member Gutman:

There were no Supplemental Issues

No one from the audience wished to speak. Chair Pehrson closed the audience participation.

The meeting adjourned at 8:05 PM.