| View Agenda for this meeting View Action Summary for this meeting PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at or about 7:00 PM.
Present: Member Baratta, Member Cassis, Member Greco, Member Gutman (arrived 7:03), Member Larson, Member Lynch, Chair Pehrson Absent: Member Meyer (excused), Member Prince (excused) Also Present: Barbara McBeth, Deputy Director of Community Development; Kristen Kapelanski, Planner; David Beschke, City Landscape Architect; Lindon Ivezaj, City Engineer; Brian Coburn, City Engineer; Kathy Smith-Roy, Finance Director; Kristin Kolb, City Attorney
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Member Cassis led the meeting attendees in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Lynch:
voice vote on approval of agenda motion made by Member Gutman and
seconded by Member Lynch:
A motion to approve the
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION No one from the audience wished to speak.
CORRESPONDENCE Member Greco stated there was correspondence to be addressed at the time of the public hearing.
COMMITTEE REPORTS There were no committee reports.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPUTY DIRECTOR REPORT
Deputy Director McBeth told the Planning Commission of the most recent items
considered by the City Council.
The
first reading of the Wetland and Watercourse Protection Ordinance Update and
Map was approved. The rezoning for The Landings property from B-3 (General
Business) to R-4 (One-Family Residential) was also approved by Council.
The text amendment concerning drive-thru uses in the B-3 District and
clarifying the requirements for fast food parking standards and stacking
spaces was approved for a second reading as was the text amendment altering
the ordinance definition for gasoline service stations to specify permitted
accessory uses.
Also, the Planning Commission just recently considered the Section 9 Façade
Waiver for the Kohl’s Department Store at the
CONSENT AGENDA - REMOVALS There were no items on the Consent Agenda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1.
2010-2016 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Deputy Director McBeth stated that the Novi’s Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) is a planning tool with a goal to identify and schedule capital
improvements over a six-year period from 2009-2015.
The CIP is an opportunity to formulate strategic long-term policy decisions
that extend beyond the current budget year.
A capital improvement is defined an any new equipment, construction,
acquisition or improvement to public lands, buildings or structures in
excess of $25,000, and with a minimum life expectancy of five years.
There have been a number of people involved in the development of the
Capital Improvement Program this year: The Capital Improvement Program
Committee; the Planning Commission; Parks, Recreation and Forestry
Commission (regarding park facilities); and administrative staff.
Two staff members are here this evening if
the Planning Commission has questions, Kathy Smith-Roy, Finance Director,
and
No one from the audience wished to address the Planning Commission on the
Capital Improvement Program and the public hearing was closed.
Member Lynch stated that he was on the committee that reviewed the CIP and
thanked Kathy Smith-Roy and City staff for the tremendous job they have done
to thoroughly analyze and prioritize spending with the money available in
the budget.
Member Lynch stated that he recommends the Planning Commission approve the
CIP based on his experience on the CIP Committee and the thorough assessment
that Kathy Smith-Roy and her team have done.
Moved by Member Lynch, seconded by Member Gutman:
A motion to adopt the 2010-2016 Capital Improvement Program.
Motion
carried 7-0.
2.
MEDILODGE OF
Public Hearing for Planning Commission’s recommendation to City Council for
a Planned Rezoning Overlay associated with Zoning Map Amendment 18.695, to
rezoned the property from R-3, One-Family Residential to RM-1, Low Density,
Low Rise Multiple Family Residential with a Planned Rezoning Overlay (PRO).
The subject property totals approximately 20.05 acres and is located in
Section 17, north of
Planner Kapelanski stated that the applicant is proposing the rezoning with
PRO of an approximately 20 acre parcel located on the north side of Eleven
Mile Road between Beck Road and Wixom Road from R-3, One-Family Residential
to RM-1, Low Density, Low-Rise Multiple-Family Residential with a Planned
Rezoning Overlay.
To the north of the property is vacant land and the Providence Hospital
Campus.
To the west is the ITC utility easement with The subject property is currently zoned R-3. The site is bordered by R-3 zoning to the north and east, RA zoning to the west and R-1 zoning with a PRO to the south. The current Future Land Use Map designates the subject property for single-family residential uses. The majority of the property surrounding the site is also master planned for single-family uses with office uses planned for the north and utility uses shown to the west. There are existing wetlands on the site, mainly concentrated in the center of the site and extending down on the southwestern side. There are also high-quality woodlands on the site occupying the northern half of the property. Planning staff has recommended the applicant postpone consideration of their proposal until the Master Plan Update has been completed. The likely recommendations of the Master Plan Update will include a new designation, the “Suburban Low-Rise District”, for the subject property and the surrounding properties. This new designation is intended to provide a transition area from office and retail developments to single-family uses. The new district would promote a residential character and would include provisions for facades with a residential design, a minimum height of one and one-half stories, no parking in the front yard and adequate parking screening, a berm adjacent to residential uses and standards for maximum lot coverage. The proposed use is expected to be included in the permitted uses in the Suburban Low-Rise District. If this new designation is approved as part of the Master Plan Update, new zoning ordinance provisions would still need to be drafted before the new district could be utilized. Since the applicant has chosen to move forward at this time, planning staff recommends denial of the proposed rezoning with PRO as the rezoning is not consistent with the recommendations of the current Future Land Use Map. In anticipation of the Master Plan Update recommendations, the applicant has made an effort to incorporate some of these expected regulations into their PRO Concept Plan. In addition, the Planning Review also notes the applicant should provide additional information with regard to their proposed public benefit. The applicant has indicated in their response letter that in addition to the proposed conservation easement depicted in the included illustration, they are also proposing a trail through the preserved area to be open to the public and are exploring the possibility of connecting that trail to the Providence Hospital Campus.
The Planning Commission will also note in the Engineering Review, that
sanitary sewer is required to be extended along the frontage of the
property.
The applicant has indicated they will
explore the possibility of extending the sewer along the southern side of
The Landscape Review recommends approval of the proposed concept plan noting landscape waivers are required for the absence of a berm along the northern, eastern and western property lines. Considering the proximity of the parking to the existing single-family residential home to the east, staff would not support a waiver of the berm for the eastern property line. The Wetland Review recommends approval of the Concept Plan and recommends the applicant place all of the remaining wetlands in a conservation easement. The applicant has proposed an approximately 8.5 acre conservation easement for portions of the rear of the property. The Woodland Review recommends approval and notes the proposed floodplain mitigation should be relocated and recommends an alternate location. The applicant has agreed to this alternate location. The City’s Environmental Consultant has recommended that all remaining natural features be placed in a conservation easement. The Traffic Review recommends approval of the Concept Plan and Traffic Study and notes items to be addressed on the Preliminary Site Plan.
As previously mentioned, the Engineering
Review indicates sanitary sewer should be extended along The Façade Review notes a Section 9 Waiver is required for the overage of asphalt shingles and underage of brick and recommends approval of the required waivers. The review also notes that given the likely recommendations of the Master Plan update, the applicant should consider incorporating additional residential elements into their design. For example, residential size windows, additional dormers, covered porches, shutters and overhangs are some of the features that could be included. It is expected that the residential look of buildings in the proposed Suburban Low-Rise District will be a significant component of that designation. Mr. Dan DeRemer, J W Design, Architect for the Medilodge Group introduced himself, Mr. Mark Russell, Russell Design and Mr. Dave LeClear, Civil Engineer from Livingston Engineering. Mr. DeRemer said he and his team have met numerous times with the City staff and have made a number of revisions to the proposed plan. Mr. DeRemer has also attended meetings with the Master Plan and Zoning Committee that is studying the Master Plan update and has tried to incorporate the Committees’ thoughts for that area within the concepts of this plan. The problem that Medilodge faces in postponement or delay of the project is that there is a Certificate of Need that is in place and is due to expire in about two months. If Medilodge does not move forward now, there is a possibility those beds could be lost. That is why tit is important to move forward with this prior to the Committee finishing their Master Plan review and approval process.
Mr. DeRemer stated he has presented a number of things to the Master Plan
and Zoning Committee and received very favorable responses to the project in
a couple of different meetings.
One of the proposed public benefits is the dedication of an 8.5 acres
conservation easement.
Mr. DeRemer has contacted Medilodge has made major revisions to the elevations in response to the comments of the Master Plan and Zoning Committee and staff. The proposed elevations show more stone than is required and than the areas of siding and brick. There is a substantial amount of asphalt shingles due to the nature of this kind of residential building. There were also concerns about the length of the building and that has been addressed. The severely articulated building is never viewed as a long slab building. All of the wings create courtyards in the middle in between the wings and even the articulation of the building is more of a single-story residential quality that would meet the recommendations of the Master Plan and Zoning Committee. Again, Medilodge is very concerned about any postponement, given the situation with the Certificate of Need and that project can be reviewed and accepted as proposed. Medilodge is willing to work with the Planning Commission and City, just as they have worked with the Master Plan and Zoning Committee on anything that is necessary. Medilodge has made changes from their original proposal and is virtually developing 7 acres of a 20 acre site and the rest is going into a conservation easement. There are some setback variances required. In order to maintain a wetland on the eastern side of the property, the building is pushed further to the west creating a need for a variance for the western setback.
Another issue is addressing the sanitary sewer.
Medilodge is extending the sewer all the way out to the front of the site
and across the entire frontage and has worked with the engineering staff
through our civil engineer to develop and try to save the wetland along the
northern property line.
In order to do that, Medilodge is willing
to install the sewer line across the street, along the southern side of
No one from the audience wished to address the Commission as part of the public hearing.
Member Greco read the Public Hearing responses into the record.
Mr. & Mrs. Burton stated in their letter
that they do approve of the request for the Medilodge of Chair Pehrson closed the public hearing at this time and turned it over to the Planning Commission. Member Cassis asked Planner Kapelanski what was keeping this PRO project from going forward and not meeting our ordinance. Planner Kapelanski answered Member Cassis by stating that at this time our Future Land Use Map does not indicate multiple-family residential uses for this property, which would be required for the RM-1 District. It is the Planning Division’s policy to recommend rezonings in correlation with the Future Land Use Map. Generally, staff does not deviate from the Future Land Use Map and refer to that for all rezonings. Staff has recommended that the applicant postpone this rezoning and staff recommended denial if they chose to move forward now. Planner Kapelanski continued, noting the applicant has worked with the Master Plan and Zoning Committee to figure out what types of concepts would be included in the Suburban Low-Rise District. The applicant has made an effort to include some of those things and these are noted in the Planning Review Letter. Should this project come in later under the Suburban Low-Rise District, if it was ever proposed, staff would not necessarily be opposed to it. The use would be permitted as it is currently envisioned and there might be some changes that might be needed as well as façade concerns, but the use itself would be permitted and it is likely the site would generally look like what is being proposed. Member Cassis addressed City Engineer Ivezaj and asked if he had any problems with what the applicant is proposing and why the project should or should not proceed. City Engineer Ivezaj stated that his opinion on the use of the sewer is not any different than from what the applicant thinks. The ordinance requires a public utility extension across the whole frontage of the property. In this particular case, the current stub is to the northeast side of the property and the applicant would be bringing it down through their property and staff asked for the sewer to be extended along their frontage as well to serve Eleven Mile Road. Member Cassis asked City Engineer Ivezaj if there might be other owners that might be able to connect o that sewer along the frontage.
City Engineer Ivezaj answered that was the
intention of leaving that stub to the northeast corner of the site and
bringing the sewer down to Member Cassis thanked both Planner Kapelanski and City Engineer Ivezaj for their comments. Member Cassis stated that he was very familiar with the Certificate of Need process. Mr. DeRemer stated that it was transferred from another facility and it took a lot of negotiation and the owner is most concerned with the deadline. The owner must have a contract with an architect to ensure the Certificate of Need. Mr. DeRemer is happy to secure an architect once he can assure the owner that he is confident that they can move forward. Medilodge came forward with their conceptual plans and asked how they could move this forward. They understand what the Master Plan and Zoning Committee is doing and applaud the efforts. The Master Plan and Zoning Committee recommended the project proceed in this way and Medilodge has worked with them along the way. Member Cassis stated that he was on the Master Plan and Zoning Committee with some of his colleagues and did follow the progress. He knows the Certificate of Need is a unique item and that it takes years to get everything in order. A PRO requires certain benefits that a City should be given along with the proposal and Member Cassis asked the applicant what was included as a public benefit. Mr. DeRemer stated the conservation easement was the major element offered as a public benefit and to work with the very large area that is behind the site and work with the hospital to develop some pathways that would benefit the area. Medilodge is proposing an extension of the sewer and preserving tremendous amounts of natural area along the site. Medilodge has a 20 acre site and is developing seven acres of it. They would typically do a 160-180 bed facility on this size property and possibly have room for expansion. This is going to be at the ultimate a 120 bed facility because of the nature of this site. They want to preserve the wetland and woodland. These are things that will benefit the area. Medilodge is not going to relocate the woodland and wetland areas somewhere else in the City. They are preserving it and respecting it. The shape of the facility will be a very residential looking building. Member Cassis asked Mr. DeRemer if they were ready to move on building this facility. Mr. DeRemer answered Member Cassis saying that as soon as they get the go ahead, they will then prepare construction documents and that will move very quickly. The Medilodge Group is a very dynamic group right now that is expanding and the need is obviously there.
Member Cassis asked if notices were sent
out and where the
Deputy Director McBeth answered the
Mr. DeRemer stated that there would be
trees between the Member Cassis asked Mr. DeRemer if they were going to do the berm there. Mr. DeRemer stated that a berm is not proposed because this area is needed for some drainage and Medilodge is proposing to put in natural trees rather than a berm. The planting itself will create a screen. All of the parking here is very simple and it is not a major parking lot. Right now the area you are talking about is an open meadow.
Member Cassis asked Mr. DeRemer what they
were doing for the Mr. Mark Russell, Russell Design, came forward and said that the view is currently wide open. He has recommended or proposed providing the required buffer along that area and creating understory to maintain the opacity requirements of the City. He does not want to propose and go forward with a berm. The reason being is that there is some premature vegetation along that eastern boundary line and a berm installation would be detrimental to that. Also, a fence inside the Medilodge property line it might be detrimental to that vegetation or there might be a slight conflict with the detention requirements.
Member Cassis addressed City Landscape
Architect Beschke and asked what he thought they could do with the
vegetation to make a nicer view for the City Landscape Architect Beschke answered he hadn’t seen the final plan that they would be coming forward with. They do have some space there and they are going down rather than up and as they said, they need it for drainage. There is no reason that it can’t be a very attractive buffer, but they would have to plant it very thick and use a lot of evergreens to make sure there is a screen there. There are supposed to be berms all around this site because of adjacent residential zoning. City Landscape Architect Beschke does not have a concern to the west or the north property lines because there is a lot of natural buffer there. However, on the eastern property line there is that one house that is fairly close to the property line up front and that responded to the public hearing notice as well. The applicant would need to provide very thick plantings if they were not willing to install a fence. Member Cassis stated that he liked the setup of the buildings as well as the brick and stone. Member Cassis recalled that he had asked the applicant to provide some dormers at a Master Plan and Zoning Committee meeting. Mr. DeRemer stated that they changed the style of the windows somewhat and added some dormers to the roof. Planner Kapelanski added that what the Suburban Low-Rise District anticipates is residential size windows. They do have a lot of windows in their façade. Staff would just envision that they would be a little bit smaller, similar to what you would find in a single family residence. Mr. DeRemer stated that the windows are scaled to those residences. There is a minimum amount of lighting required for each room by the state. By reducing the window size, Medilodge would have to add a number of windows to each of those rooms in order to make it work. This is going to be a state of the art rehabilitation facility; the idea and concept now is to make it more a hospitality look. This would be a destination, almost a spa kind of feel. The design as proposed does that and still has a very residential scale to it. Member Cassis agreed with Mr. DeRemer and he liked the idea in the front of the building and it gives it a nice façade and that small windows would not look good in the entrance. He does understand Planner Kapelanski and Deputy Director McBeth’s position, and is aware of the Master Plan updates coming forward, but the process has been very slow. Mr. DeRemer stated that he understood this process. Medilodge wanted to get into that process originally and find out whether they should proceed. The owner has obviously spent a great deal of money to get this far and is confident they are proceeding in the way that makes sense and did not overlap or didn’t negate what was being planned by the Master Plan and Zoning Committee. Mr. DeRemer and his team have studied it and looked at all the things that are proposed and feel that they really are within the framework of what is proposed for that area. Member Cassis stated that he has asked Mr. DeRemer in their Master Plan and Zoning Committee meetings about the firm that he represents and said that he did understand that it was a reputable firm. The Planning Commission really does not know when the Master Plan will be approved and go through the process of the public hearing. Member Cassis really thinks that this project is ready to go as Mr. DeRemer has said. With this challenged economy, it would be a benefit and will add to our tax base. This is the kind of project that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee is looking for in that area for the Suburban Low-Rise District and Planner Kapelanski agreed with that to. Member Cassis is in favor of giving the applicant the go ahead.
Member Lynch stated that this is far different from the applicant’s original
proposal.
Staff and the Committee asked for the
wetlands to be placed in a conservation easement and the applicant agreed;
the City asked for a sewer along
The issue the Planning Commission faces is; is the Commission going to delay
this project because we want to debate for another six, ten, twelve or
fourteen months a concept for that area or has the applicant done enough
based on the concepts discussed in prior meetings; has the applicant done
enough to satisfy where that area is going so they can move ahead right now
and will not loose their Certificate of Need.
Member Lynch believes that this fits Member Baratta appreciates the hard work and the very through examination of the project by Member Cassis and Member Lynch. He is very familiar with this property and passes it regularly and has a couple of concerns specifically with the screening of the adjacent residential use. The applicant should agree to some sort of screening with mature plants and trees. After watching the most recent City Council meeting on television, Member Baratta noticed that the Council recommended that the petitioner of Rezoning 18.694 apply for the same kind of rezoning that this group is currently doing, the PRO, in recognition that there was a timing issue and some other issues. With that understanding, there is a very limited concern of not having that Master Plan in place today, but this project meets for all intents and purposes what the Master Plan update is going to include anyway. Member Baratta would be very supportive of the proposal and thinks the applicant has followed the intent and really the recommendation of the City Council.
Member Larson stated that he agrees with everything the other members have
said and has only two concerns.
One of them is the height of the trees on
Mr. Russell stated that they have not yet identified those species, but per ordinance requirements, those trees will be deciduous canopy trees, about forty to fifty feet tall at mature height. When they are just put in, they will be two and one-half or three inch caliper trees and they will probably be fifteen to twenty feet tall.
Member Larson stated that he also has some
concerns with the west elevation where the elevation is going to face Mr. Russell stated that the roof is thirty feet to the center line of the eave of the roof. It is forty feet to the peak. The vision of the roof will be screened with the trees. The intent would be to screen the roof and there will be plenty of plant material there to do that. Mr. DeRemer stated that if the roof configuration is greater than what the City Ordinance would allow, Medilodge could reduce the pitch on it. The pitch could be reduced and the building would still have a residential look to it. A detailed shingle that has a three dimensional look to it is proposed. Mr. Larson said the roof looks imposing from the elevation shots. Short of that, he thinks it is a fabulous project and will support it. Member Gutman stated that his colleagues on the Master Planning Committee have summarized our lengthy multiple discussions very well. He thinks the intention of this project meets very well with the future Suburban Low-Rise concept and the applicant has worked hard to meet that and he appreciates that. Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Lynch:
In the matter of Medilodge of Novi, SP10-05 with Zoning Map Amendment
18.695, motion to
recommend approval
to the City Council to rezone the subject property from R-3 (One-Family
Residential) to RM-1 (Low Density, Low-Rise Multiple-Family Residential)
with a Planned Rezoning Overlay,
with the following considerations: (a) The applicant providing the required
sanitary sewer extension along Eleven Mile Road, with the preference that
the sewer be installed along the southern side of Eleven Mile Road to
preserve valuable natural resources on the north side of Eleven Mile Road;
(b)
The applicant relocating the proposed
floodplain mitigation to another area of the site, consistent with the
recommendations of the Woodland Review Letter to preserve valuable natural
resources on site; (c) The applicant incorporating additional features of
the proposed Suburban Low-Rise concept as stated in the Façade Consultant’s
review letter; (d) Subject to the deviations of ordinance standards and all
conditions as identified in the staff and consultant’s review letters, and
specifically as identified in the
City Landscape Architect Beschke stated that he wanted to bring up one more
issue.
Staff
has been talking with the City’s Environmental Consultant and there have
been several site visits.
The applicant is setting quite a bit of land aside as part of the
conservation easement, but there is a fair amount of land behind the
building that is not included in that conservation easement.
It almost looks like a phase II of a phase II project. If the Commission is
considering rezoning this whole parcel, perhaps the applicant should
indicate why that area was left out of the conservation easement.
The colored drawing provided by the applicant makes it look like a meadow
there, however, it’s mature woodlands.
Mr. Beschke stated his opinion, that if that land is not going to be
developed, it should be included in the conservation easement.
Mr. DeRemer stated that the property is open through the middle and all the
trees have been surveyed.
The owner doesn’t want to give away the entire site.
Something may happen there at some point.
Mr. DeRemer stated that in his lifetime, most likely there will never be
anything back there.
The owner understands that he would have to come back for any site plan
approval for development of that area.
The thought is that it could be developed as assisted living cottages or
something of that nature.
It is great natural area for something like to happen.
However, the market is not there, and people moving into assisted living
elements right now are not able to sell their single family homes so they
could move into something like that.
It isn’t intended to happen for a very long time.
So, short of showing the Planning Commission something as a master plan that
would help in that area, there is no way to tell what that market is going
to be 20 years down the road.
This owner has typically purchased major pieces of property adjacent to
other properties for future expansion.
They do not want to sell themselves short and there might be some future
expansion.
Member Gutman asked City Engineer Ivezaj
about the sewers that the applicant is tapping into from the northeast and
is one of the requirements of this kind of development to have the sewer
frontage along
City Engineer Ivezaj answered that anytime a new development is put in at
the City, staff typically asks for sewer or water to be installed across the
entire frontage of the parcel.
There are certain cases where a property is at the end of the stub or end of
the sewer district, where staff wouldn’t require them to install sewer or
water across their entire frontage, but in this particular case, because the
purpose of that stubbing left there was to service Eleven Mile Road or for
future development along Eleven Mile Road, staff is requesting the sewer
extension.
Chair Pehrson asked Deputy Director McBeth when the Master Plan updates will
be complete.
Deputy Director McBeth stated that the final documents are being reviewed by
staff.
Staff expects there is going to be another Master Plan and Zoning Committee
meeting where the final documents will be presented along with another
similar request with a modification to the documents.
Staff is hoping that meeting will be held in the next couple of weeks and
then the public hearing will follow.
Staff would like to schedule the updates for consideration by the Planning
Commission in April and then the matter will go to City Council for
consideration and distribution to neighboring communities and utility
companies.
Those
organizations have several weeks to respond.
The Master Plan may be adopted at that point.
Again, as discussed, if there are some ordinance amendments to consider, the
drafting of those could begin during that waiting period if staff gets the
go ahead from the Planning Commission on that Master Plan document.
It
will be several months before the final approval of the Master Plan.
Chair Pehrson stated that this is a great development, but would approval of
the request set a precedent for approval of other rezonings contrary to the
recommendations of the Master Plan.
Deputy Director McBeth stated that the way the motion was phrased covers
various aspects of that concern.
In this instance, this is not a straight rezoning request without a concept
plan for consideration.
Staff has gotten quite a bit of detail about what that concept plan will
include.
Perhaps there is a certain comfort level that Planning Commission would
feel, acknowledging that this particular site and this location may be
appropriate for multiple-family uses and this use in particular.
Due to the location of the parcel and its size and its proximity to the
surrounding uses, the proposal may be appropriate for this location.
A
PRO has also been submitted which provides an additional layer of protection
for the Planning Commission.
Ms.
McBeth does not think that this necessarily sets a negative precedent.
City Attorney Kolb agreed with Ms. McBeth’s comments.
Member Cassis asked the applicant how far they have gone in contacting the
hospital and has there been any reaction.
Mr. DeRemer stated that the ownership, Medilodge Executive Committee had met
with the hospital quite some time ago, before they started working on this
site, about the possibility of referrals.
This whole business, the rehabilitation portion of it especially takes place
because of referrals from hospitals.
If a person goes in for a hip or any other replacement, they are referred to
a facility after they leave the hospital.
So Medilodge has laid some of the ground work ahead of time for that
referral process.
There are service planners, placement planners within their organization
that work with the placement people within the hospital.
The proximity of the hospital is a fine part of this location.
Member Cassis stated that this is an additional business for the hospital.
Member Cassis asked Mr. DeRemer if there was going to be any areas for
benches or activity for the residents so they are not inside all the time.
Mr. DeRemer answered Member Cassis saying that those are not shown right
now, because there is not detailed topography of the entire site completed
and in order to show those features; that has to be done.
Medilodge wants the residents to be able to get out and walk.
The
whole idea of the rehabilitation is that someone is not going to spend
thirty days in a wheelchair.
After four days, they are up and moving and they will be outside.
This will be a fairly mobile population and Medilodge wants them to get out
and move around.
We
do have one hospice wing that will be internal only.
One of the reasons why Medilodge is not going to a two-story operation is so
the patients have the ability to move around.
Medilodge has found that the residents will not use the facilities if they
have to move up and down in an elevator and be inconvenienced.
Member Cassis asked Mr. DeRemer if he would work with staff on the location
of the amenities.
Mr. DeRemer stated that Medilodge wants to work with the City and
serve this area.
Member Lynch asked City Landscape Architect Beschke if there was something
he had missed regarding the conservation easement.
City Landscape Architect Beschke answered that he had walked the property
and it does look as if the applicant is leaving a certain portion outside
the easement, they could put a pretty fair amount of building back there.
Mr. Beschke wondered why that area was left out of the conservation
easement.
Member Lynch stated that if the applicant wanted to construct something in
the rear of the site, he thinks it would fit in nicely.
Deputy Director McBeth wanted to clarify one point that was made in the
motion.
The fourth point was approval subject to the deviations of ordinance
standards and all conditions as identified in the staff and consultant’s
review letters.
Since those were not specifically listed in the motion itself, if the
Planning Commission could confirm that those were noted and there was no
disagreement about any of those deviations from ordinance standards with the
acknowledgment that those will be carried out in the PRO Agreement.
Member Gutman agreed to the suggested amendment to the motion as did the
seconder, Member Lynch.
ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION TO RECOMMEND
APPROVAL TO
In the matter of Medilodge of Novi, SP10-05 with Zoning Map Amendment
18.695, motion to
recommend approval
to the City Council to rezone the subject property from R-3 (One-Family
Residential) to RM-1 (Low Density, Low-Rise Multiple-Family Residential)
with a Planned Rezoning Overlay,
with the following considerations: (a) The applicant providing the required
sanitary sewer extension along Eleven Mile Road, with the preference that
the sewer be installed along the southern side of Eleven Mile Road to
preserve valuable natural resources on the north side of Eleven Mile Road;
(b)
The applicant relocating the proposed
floodplain mitigation to another area of the site, consistent with the
recommendations of the Woodland Review Letter to preserve valuable natural
resources on site; (c) The applicant incorporating additional features of
the proposed Suburban Low-Rise concept as stated in the Façade Consultant’s
review letter; (d) Subject to the deviations of ordinance standards and all
conditions as identified in the staff and consultant’s review letters, and
specifically as identified in the
MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION There were no Matters for Consideration.
CONSENT AGENDA REMOVALS FOR COMMISSION ACTION There was no Consent Agenda.
MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION There were no matters for discussion.
SUPPLEMENTAL ISSUES There were no supplemental issues
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION No one from the audience wished to speak.
ADJOURNMENT Moved by Member Lynch, seconded by Member Baratta. .
VOICE VOTE ON THE MOTION TO ADJOURN MADE BY MEMBER LYNCH AND SECONDED BY
MEMBER BARATTA:
Motion to adjourn the February 24, 2010 Planning Commission meeting.
Motion carried 7-0.
The meeting adjourned at
Transcribed by
Juanita Freeman
Date Approved: March 20, 2010
|