View Agenda for this meeting

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 15, 2003, 7:30 P.M.
45175 W. Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan 48375
(248) 347-0475

Proceedings had before the NOVI PLANNING COMMISSION, taken before me, Maureen A. Haran, CSR-3606, a Notary Public, within and for the County of Oakland, State of Michigan, at 45175 W. Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, on Wednesday, January 15, 2003.


Chairperson: Antonia Nagy

Commission Members: Lowell Sprague, Lynne Paul,

Tim Shroyer, Gwen Markham, Lynn Kocan, Larry Papp,

David Ruyle, John Avdoulos


Planning Director: David A. Evancoe

City Attorney: Gerald A. Fisher

Planners: Timothy R. Schmitt, Barbara McBeth

City Engineer: Brian Coburn


Maureen A. Haran, CSR 3606

1 Novi, Michigan

2 Wednesday, January 15, 2003

3 7:35 p.m.

4 _ _ _


6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Good evening. I'd

7 like to call the Planning Commission meeting to

8 order.


10 Mrs. Paul, if you would please lead us

11 in the Pledge of Allegiance.


13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Schmitt, if you

14 would please call the roll.

15 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

16 Commissioner Avdoulos?


18 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Kocan.


20 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Markham.


22 MR. SCHMITT: Chairperson Nagy.


24 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Papp.





2 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Paul.


4 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Ruyle.


6 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Shroyer.


8 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Sprague.




12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have any

13 additions or deletions to the Agenda?

14 MEMBER RUYLE: Move for approval as

15 written.

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is there a second

17 for the approval?


19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: All in favor say

20 aye.



23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: At this time, we

24 have audience participation. Is there anyone in the




1 audience that would like to address the Commission

2 with any matter other than the public hearings this

3 evening?

4 (There was no response from the

5 audience.)

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Seeing none, I

7 will close the audience participation.


9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have any

10 correspondence, Madam Secretary?

11 MEMBER KOCAN: I have none,

12 Madam Chair.



15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have any

16 communications and/or committee reports?

17 (There was no response from the

18 Members.)

19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We have none --

20 excuse me?

21 MEMBER KOCAN: It's not on the Agenda

22 but we were going to talk about it sometime,

23 scheduling committee meeting dates. And that's

24 something that we haven't done and I just think it's




1 really imperative. We're into the middle of January

2 now and we need Budget meetings, Implementation

3 Committee meetings, Rules Committee meetings.

4 Should we look at calendars, or

5 discuss it at the end of the evening? And maybe I

6 should have added it to the Agenda. I'm getting

7 concerned.


9 Madam Secretary, we did add that to the Agenda, and I

10 think it might have been the meeting that you were

11 not present. But-

12 MEMBER KOCAN: (Interposing) I don't

13 think we scheduled any dates.

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We didn't schedule

15 dates. We added it to the Agenda but we did not

16 schedule dates. So why don't we see what happens at

17 the end of the meeting and then maybe-

18 MEMBER KOCAN: (Interposing) We'll see

19 what time it is.

20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: What time it is,

21 and then we can go from there.

22 MEMBER KOCAN: That's fine.






1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Evancoe, you

2 have a presentation.

3 MR. EVANCOE: Yes, thank you,

4 Madam Chair. I just have two very brief

5 presentations. The first is an update on

6 City Council -- recent City Council action.

7 At the last City Council meeting, the

8 Detroit Catholic Central rezoning was taken up, and

9 it was approved in the same manner as it was

10 recommended by the Planning Commission. So the

11 rezoning to the R-1 occurred with the Statement of

12 Intent, that if within five years a high school is

13 not built on that site, then the City could look at

14 rezoning the property back to its present zoning.

15 The other item I wanted to mention is

16 good news. I wanted to announce a new planner that's

17 joined our staff. You'll recall that Beth Brock took

18 a new position up in Orion Township, and we have a

19 new planner who has just started last Monday. Her

20 name is Darcy Schmitt, same spelling as Tim's last

21 name so that's going to be interesting.

22 She was not able to make it to this

23 evening's meeting, so I'm going to introduce her to

24 you next week, but just to let you know a little bit




1 about her, she has a bachelor's degree in Landscape

2 Architecture from Michigan State and a master's

3 degree in Urban Planning also from Michigan State,

4 and quite a bit of experience in the private sector.

5 So I'll tell you a little bit more

6 about her next week -- or next time when she's able

7 to join us. Thank you.

8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very

9 much.

10 There is no Consent Agenda, so there

11 are no deletions or approvals.

12 At this time we'll go into the Public

13 Hearings, but before I do, I would like to comment on

14 the fact that we have a court reporter with us. I

15 would appreciate if the people presenting this

16 evening would cooperate by stating their names and

17 spelling their last names for the court reporter, as

18 well as speaking at a speed that she can write

19 without killing herself. I do the same thing, that's

20 my occupation, so that's why I'm always asking

21 everyone to be cooperative.

22 With that, I'll come to the first

23 Public Hearing.






2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: The first matter is

3 Island Lake of Novi, Public Hearing on the request of

4 Toll Brothers for a recommendation to City Council

5 for approval of a revised Phasing Plan for the

6 proposed amendment to the Island Lake Residential

7 Unit Development Plan.

8 The applicant is proposing to amend

9 the Phasing Plan from the previously approved

10 RUD Plan, by removing a small area from Phase 6 and

11 including it with Phase 2. The property in question

12 is located in Section 18, north of Ten Mile Road

13 between Napier and Wixom Roads. The affected acreage

14 is approximately 9.2 of 907 acres.

15 Ms. McBeth.

16 MR. EVANCOE: Madam Chair, just before

17 Barbara begins, I wanted to let the Commission know

18 that we did invite Rod Arroyo, our Planning

19 Consultant, to attend because he did do quite a bit

20 of work on this particular project. So he's

21 available, after Barbara is finished, for questions.

22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very

23 much.

24 Ms. McBeth.




1 MS. MCBETH: Thank you, Madam Chair.

2 I'll put the aerial photo up to display the location

3 of the property, which is outlined in blue on this

4 portion of the page.

5 This is Napier Road, located right

6 here. Wixom Road is located-

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is your mike on,

8 Ms. McBeth?

9 MS. MCBETH: Is that any better?


11 MS. MCBETH: Wixom Road is located on

12 the right side of the page, the lake is located right

13 about here. The area that we're talking about is

14 outlined in blue, right in this location.

15 So the subject property that we're

16 talking about and the properties to the northeast, to

17 the east, and to the south, are currently under

18 development with homes within the Island Lake

19 Development. To the north of the subject property

20 are the two mobile home parks that front on

21 Napier Road.

22 The Master Plan shows that the subject

23 property and surrounding properties within the

24 Island Lake Development, are Master Planned for




1 single family uses. To the north, the property is

2 Master Planned for the mobile home park.

3 And likewise, the zoning map shows

4 that the properties within Island Lake are zoned

5 either R-1, one-family residential or R-A,

6 residential acreage. To the north, the zoning is M-H

7 for mobile home.

8 I'll put the aerial photo back up and

9 we'll talk a little about what the proposal is this

10 evening.

11 The submitted Rephasing Plan that was

12 included in your package shows that part of Phase 6

13 of this Island Lake Development is proposed to be

14 moved over to Phase 2, which is located right about

15 in this area. Phase 6 is, again, right here.

16 Phase 2 is along this road that goes through the

17 development, and that's part of Phase 2 but

18 specifically is Phase 2B.

19 Site plans have been approved for both

20 Phase 2 and Phase 6, and of course construction is

21 taking place within both of those phases.

22 In this area that we're talking about

23 a total of 14 non-waterfront attached units are

24 located within that area and that area does consist




1 of approximately 9.2 acres.

2 If the rephasing is approved, there

3 would be no change to the number of units or the type

4 of units.

5 The applicant is proposing the change

6 to allow the phasing line of the development to

7 follow the condominium boundaries. The letter from

8 the applicant explains that the 14 condominium units

9 under consideration have different rights for the use

10 of the lake than the other units within the balance

11 of Phase 6. The letter also indicated the

12 difficulties of including those units that have

13 different rights in the same condominium

14 association.

15 In addition to the Phasing Plan

16 change, the applicant requests an amendment to the

17 RUD Agreement to document the change in the phase

18 boundary. The Planning Commission is asked to send a

19 recommendation of approval or denial of the revised

20 Phasing Plan to City Council for Council's

21 consideration of the amendment to the RUD Agreement.

22 It should be noted that all of the

23 review letters in your packet indicated there were no

24 issues or concerns that the Planning Commission




1 needed to be concerned about this evening.

2 Thank you very much.


4 Would you like to address the

5 Commission?

6 Please state your name and spell it

7 for the court reporter.

8 MR. SULLIVAN: Kevin Sullivan,

9 S-u-l-l-i-v-a-n. I'm Development Manager for

10 Toll Brothers.

11 MR. BEAN: And Eric Bean, B-e-a-n,

12 counsel for Toll Brothers.

13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Is

14 there anything you would like to add?

15 MR. BEAN: Not unless there's any

16 questions.

17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. Do we have

18 any correspondence with regards to this matter?

19 MEMBER KOCAN: I have none.


21 Madam Secretary.

22 Do we have any members of the audience

23 that would like to address the Commission regarding

24 the Island Lake Public Hearing?





1 (There was no response from the

2 audience.)

3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Seeing none, I

4 will close the audience participation, and I will

5 turn it over to the Commission.

6 Member Paul.

7 MEMBER PAUL: This seems like a very

8 straight forward project and the change is very

9 minute. I'd like to make a motion.

10 In the matter of the request of Toll Brothers,

11 SP 02-48, motion to recommend approval to City

12 Council to revise Island Lake RUD Phasing Plan

13 subject to there is no change to the number or

14 type of units. This revision demonstrates the

15 phase lines accurately for the condominium

16 boundaries in Phase 2 and Phase 6. All of the

17 consultant's requirements have been met.

18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have a

19 second?


21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Second made by

22 Mr. Sprague.

23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is there any

24 discussion or any questions from the Commissioners?




1 (There was no response from the

2 Members.)

3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Seeing none, I

4 would call for the vote then, please, Mr. Schmitt.

5 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

6 Commissioner Avdoulos.


8 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Kocan.


10 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Markham.



13 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Papp.


15 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Paul.


17 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Ruyle.


19 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Shroyer.


21 MR. SCHMITT: And Commissioner

22 Sprague.


24 MR. SCHMITT: Motion passes 9 to 0.




1 MR. BEAN: Thank you.

2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very

3 much. Good luck, gentlemen.

4 MEMBER PAUL: May I make one comment,

5 Madam Chair?

6 Can we save these? Are these going to

7 City Council, so we don't have to reproduce all these

8 documents?

9 MEMBER KOCAN: That's exactly what I

10 was going to say. If you don't want them, pass them

11 up.

12 MR. SULLIVAN: Please. If you could.

13 MEMBER MARKHAM: I want my copy of

14 the RUD that came with it.

15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Would you put that

16 on the record.

17 MEMBER MARKHAM: I would like to keep

18 my copy of the RUD for reference, that came with

19 this. But I'd be happy to turn in the rest of the

20 material.

21 MEMBER KOCAN: I was also going to

22 keep mine. I was just going to say, before anybody

23 throws it away, throw it away in the direction of the

24 Planning Department.




1 MEMBER RUYLE: Please do keep those

2 amendments.

3 MR. SULLIVAN: If anybody wants

4 additionals for their own use, have somebody let me

5 know and I can reproduce some more.


7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Our next Public

8 Hearing is Marty Feldman Chevrolet, Site Plan

9 Number 02-44.

10 Public Hearing on the request of

11 Marty Feldman for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan

12 and Special Land Use Permit. The subject property is

13 located in Section 23 on the south side of

14 Grand River Avenue, between Novi and Meadowbrook

15 Roads, in the B-3, General Business, District, and

16 P-1, Vehicular Parking, District. The developer

17 proposes two building additions, 3,078 square feet

18 and 7,331 square feet, to the existing car dealership

19 and car storage lot. The subject site is 9.97

20 acres.

21 Ms. McBeth.

22 MS. MCBETH: Thank you, Madam Chair.

23 I'll put the aerial photo up again to display the

24 location of the property.




1 Grand River Avenue is located right

2 about here on the page. Subject site is located

3 here. Meadowbrook Road is to the east or the right

4 side of the page, and Novi Road is to the left or

5 west of the property.

6 As you can see from the aerial photo,

7 the subject property is currently developed with a

8 Marty Feldman Chevrolet dealership on the north side

9 of the property, and there's vacant land on the south

10 side of the property. To the west is vacant land and

11 further to the west is a commercial building.

12 To the north, across Grand River, the

13 properties are developed with various commercial

14 uses. To the south and to the southwest are the

15 Fountain Park Apartments. To the east is a driveway

16 that allows access to the Fountain Park Apartments

17 and then further to the east is vacant land fronting

18 on Grand River Avenue.

19 I'll show you the zoning map which

20 shows that the subject parcel is zoned B-3, General

21 Business, and P-1, Vehicular Parking, at the rear.

22 To the west, the land is zoned B-3, General Business,

23 and RM-1, Low Density Multiple Family. To the north

24 across Grand River, the land is zoned B-3, General




1 Business. To the east the property is zoned NCC, Non

2 Center Commercial. And to the south, the land is

3 zoned RM-1, Low Density Multiple Family Residential.

4 I'll show you the Master Plan for the

5 property. Again, here is the subject property

6 outlined in yellow. The Master Plan for land use

7 recommends Town Center gateway for the subject

8 property, and for the surrounding properties to the

9 west, to the north, and to the east. To the south,

10 the Master Plan recommends Multiple Family uses.

11 This is a small version of the Site

12 Plan; I'll zoom in on it for you. North is to the

13 top more or less. This is Grand River which, of

14 course, goes at a slight angle. The proposed Site

15 Plan shows two building additions to the existing

16 Marty Feldman Dealership, one to the front and one at

17 the rear, as well as the improvement of the rear part

18 of the property to allow a car storage lot and

19 parking lot for employees.

20 One building addition is proposed for

21 the front of the building. That will add space to

22 the bodyshop and write-up area within the building.

23 The addition at the back is intended to be used for

24 additional bodyshop space, parts, and service areas.




1 The proposed car storage lot, at the back of the

2 property, requires special land use approval and it's

3 also subject to ordinance conditions, which require a

4 ten-foot tall berm around the perimeter of the lot on

5 the west, south, and east sides in order to buffer

6 the residential uses from the proposed car

7 dealership.

8 The Plan Review Center has discussed a

9 great number of issues with the Applicant since the

10 plans were first presented in the early part of

11 2002. Most of those issues have been resolved to the

12 satisfaction of staff, however there are still a few

13 issues for consideration by the Planning Commission

14 this evening.

15 The Planning review indicated that a

16 Zoning Board of Appeals waiver is required to allow

17 the proposed service bay doors to face Grand River.

18 Those would be located approximately here on the

19 plan. There is currently one overhead service door

20 that faces Grand River in the existing bodyshop,

21 approximately in this area. The two doors within the

22 proposed building addition will replace that one

23 existing service bay door that faces to the north.

24 A Noise Analysis was provided, as is




1 required for the review of Special Land Use Permit.

2 The analysis concluded that the sound levels expected

3 to be generated from the site, including the proposed

4 improvement, will be within the standards of the City

5 ordinances, with the understanding that the service

6 doors, which would be facing to the south, would be

7 closed when a pneumatic hammer tool is in use within

8 the building. The report further states that the

9 general manager of the dealership indicated that

10 those service doors would be closed when that

11 pneumatic hammer tool is in use.

12 There are no woodlands or wetlands on

13 the site. The Landscaping review indicated that

14 significant progress has been made since the plans

15 were submitted for the preapplication meeting, and

16 that only minor revisions to the landscape plan would

17 need to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan

18 Review.

19 The Traffic Engineers review stated

20 that approval of the preliminary plan is recommended

21 with items that may be addressed at the time of Final

22 Site Plan Review.

23 The Engineering review recommended

24 approval of the proposed preliminary engineering




1 plans and the Storm Water Management Plan with

2 additional items to be addressed at Final Site Plan

3 Review.

4 The Fire Department review recommended

5 approval of the submitted plans.

6 And I will show you the facade board.

7 Maybe we can pass this one around. The Facade review

8 indicated that the proposed building additions are in

9 compliance with the facade ordinance, subject to the

10 proposed building materials matching the existing

11 materials in respect to color, texture, and size.

12 This facade board was prepared and shows the proposed

13 building materials.

14 Thank you, Madam chair.


16 Ms. McBeth.

17 Do we have any other reports?

18 Mr. Evancoe.

19 MR. EVANCOE: Madam Chair, just one

20 note. Mike McGinnis, our intern landscape architect

21 is in Chicago and was unable to make it tonight, so I

22 will try to be your landscape architect tonight.

23 I'll do my best to answer any questions about that.

24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very




1 much.

2 This is a Public Hearing. Is there

3 anyone in the audience that wishes to address the

4 Commission regarding this site?

5 Seeing no one, I will close -- I'm

6 sorry. Sir, would you like to come forward and

7 please state your name, spell it for the court

8 reporter, and your address for the record.

9 MR. DEUTCHMAN: Yes, ma'am. James

10 Deutchman, D-e-u-t-c-h-m-a-n. My office address is

11 31807 Middlebelt Road, Suite 103, Farmington Hills,

12 Michigan.

13 I'm one of the partners and owners of

14 Fountain Park Apartments, which is the property to

15 the south, and we worked very closely with all the

16 folks on the staff of the City of Novi, as well as

17 Feldman Chevrolet, in an effort to try to get a very

18 acceptable redevelopment of that vacant property. We

19 wanted to emphasize how we worked in a collaborative

20 way to try to get the best for both properties and to

21 yield what we thought would be an acceptable

22 resolution as far as the expansion of the

23 dealership.

24 We wanted to endorse the proposal for




1 a Site Plan approval tonight to that effect.

2 That's it.

3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank very much.

4 MR. DEUTCHMAN: You're welcome.

5 MR. FISHER: Madam Chair.

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, Mr. Fisher.

7 MR. FISHER: I would like to merely

8 clarify one thing for the Public Hearing record.

9 There was an issue in this matter relating to the use

10 of overhead doors on the area that was rezoned in

11 1995. I just want to clarify, and I'm assuming that

12 the overhead doors are not within that area, and I'd

13 just like the confirmation of that for this record.

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Would someone from

15 the Applicants please step forward, and if we could

16 please have an answer to our attorney's question. If

17 you could state your name and spell your last name

18 for the record, sir.

19 MR. ZIMMERMAN: My name is Lonny

20 Zimmerman, L-o-n-n-y Z-i-m-m-e-r-m-a-n. I'm an

21 architect with Seigel/Tuomaala Associates in

22 Farmington Hills. And the answer to the question is

23 the overhead doors are on the older parcel, not on

24 the new rezoned parcel.





1 MR. FISHER: Thank you.

2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Would

3 you like to present for Marty Feldman Chevrolet or

4 did you have someone else that would present further

5 information?

6 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Well, I'll present

7 for Marty Feldman Chevrolet.


9 MR. ZIMMERMAN: The additions that we

10 have, that we've shown here, the front addition is an

11 entrance to the service and the bodyshop area. What

12 we have provided for is an indoor area for cars to

13 drive in from Grand River and to be met in the

14 service area. This will not be in the actual service

15 bays, but will be an area where cars can be

16 inspected. It's a service write-up area, basically,

17 and it will be a bodyshop write-up area.

18 What it's going to do in the front, is

19 it's going to take cars out of the front area that

20 would be parked there waiting for someone to review

21 them for body damage, and permit it to be done on the

22 inside. Likewise, with the two doors that are facing

23 on Grand River -- and I should indicate we spent a

24 lot of time coming up with alternate locations for




1 those doors, being fully aware of what the ordinance

2 requirements are. And from a functional standpoint

3 and from -- frankly, we felt we could handle it

4 esthetically well also. We felt that the two doors

5 permitted two lines of cars in the morning rush hour

6 when cars are lined up, to actually have a double row

7 rather than a single row. And this would reduce the

8 amount of traffic lining up in their lot and keep it

9 further away from Grand River as the traffic lines up

10 in there.

11 When the doors open, what's going to

12 happen is that the cars would then drive into this

13 area, and those needing body estimates would go to

14 the right and head towards the bodyshop, which is

15 just a short distance, and those needing service

16 write-up would go to the left. So the doors would

17 then permit this large open area to become part of

18 the write-up area for both service and bodyshop.

19 The rear area, is both body repair

20 shop, parts, as well as being service bays. The

21 doors we just referred to are going to be service

22 doors and the cars will enter those from the north

23 side of the lot and from the outside, and those are

24 through those service doors and each one will have




1 its own work area within those doors. The bodyshop

2 service would be entered from the bodyshop directly.


4 MR. ZIMMERMAN: That's functionally

5 the way the site will work right now. We spent a lot

6 of time working with staff to try to get the

7 landscape worked out both satisfactory to staff,

8 satisfactory to Mr. Deutchman and the apartments.

9 And we feel that we would be happy to answer any

10 questions on that. We have our civil engineer here

11 tonight, if there are technical questions related to

12 those issues.

13 We have a detention pond as you can

14 see on the drawing. It will be a dry detention pond,

15 in other words, no standing water in it, no fences

16 around it. I'll be happy to answer any questions.

17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very

18 much.

19 With that, I'll close the Public

20 Hearing. Thank you very much. I will turn this over

21 to the Commission. Do we have any comments or

22 questions?

23 Commissioner Markham.

24 MEMBER MARKHAM: Thank you,




1 Madam Chair.

2 You answered one of my questions

3 which is why there were two doors on the front of the

4 building instead of one. Thank you, Mr. Zimmerman.

5 I do have a landscape question. I

6 noticed on the landscape drawing that we're retaining

7 a number of Ash trees, and I just wondered why we're

8 doing that if we're having an Ash borer problem.

9 MR. EVANCOE: Right. And we should

10 not be doing that. The Ash trees I noted -- the tree

11 survey that was prepared by the Applicant includes

12 the Ash trees that are between Fountain Park and the

13 P-1 site, and I really don't believe those trees have

14 a long future. So I don't think -- but those are

15 also not on their property. They were included on

16 their inventory, but those are off-site. But you're

17 correct. Any Ash trees, whether they're green ash or

18 white ash, we would not support using those.

19 MEMBER MARKHAM: I think there are

20 also some that are on their property closer to

21 Grand River. So that may be something we want to

22 deal with while all the trucks are there and

23 everything is happening.

24 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Absolutely. I don't




1 think we want to retain the Ash trees if there's a

2 problem with them anyways.

3 MEMBER MARKHAM: I was wondering if

4 there was a ZBA waiver granted when the dealership

5 was originally built and the service door faced

6 Grand River, which violates the ordinance. Does

7 anybody know whether there's a waiver on record from

8 way back?


10 MS. MCBETH: I can tell you we

11 researched the minutes back to the early '90s or so.

12 We didn't find any waiver from that time. I imagine

13 those doors have existed there since the building was

14 built, and there may or may not have been an

15 ordinance requirement about doors facing the

16 thoroughfare at that time.

17 MEMBER MARKHAM: I'm very glad to

18 hear that you've worked closely with the apartment

19 owners to the south. I think that was really good.

20 It helps smooth things over and it's obvious there's


21 a lot of landscaping there.

22 I did notice that the ten-foot berm,

23 when all is said and done, is really only four feet

24 higher than the ground feet level of the truck bays.




1 So it's not really -- it meets the ordinance, so I

2 really don't have a complaint about it, but I'm

3 hoping that the vegetation that you have on top of

4 those berms is going to be really tall enough to

5 really screen the apartments from the doors.

6 MR. ZIMMERMAN: We've done our best

7 to make it so it will be. And working with the

8 departments, I think -- they've looked at it too, and

9 we anticipate it will be a solid, or nearly solid

10 screen.

11 MEMBER MARKHAM: Also, I was very

12 encouraged to see the island in the parking area, to

13 break that up with vegetation. We don't see that in

14 every development, and I'm glad you have it in yours.

15 I can support this development

16 change.


18 MEMBER PAPP: Thank you, Madam Chair.

19 Do we know if there was a variance for

20 the Mercedes dealer and Chrysler-Jeep dealer, and the

21 Jaguar dealer since they all have doors facing major

22 thoroughfares?

23 MS. MCBETH: Yes. We did some

24 research on those. We noticed there was a waiver for




1 the Jaguar dealership. I didn't research the other

2 two that you mentioned.

3 MEMBER PAPP: The other two are also

4 facing Haggerty Road, I believe.

5 The double doors that are facing

6 Grand River, is that going to be the main doors now

7 for service?

8 MR. ZIMMERMAN: They will be the main

9 service entrance doors, yes.

10 MEMBER PAPP: So you're really

11 switching the service doors from the ones that are on

12 the side, so people will pull in left and right; is

13 that correct?

14 MR. ZIMMERMAN: The way it works right

15 now is the doors that are on -- if you're on

16 Grand River, the right-hand pair of doors are the

17 doors that people drive in, and then the left-hand

18 pair of doors are what the cars are driven out to

19 store in the service lot for the upcoming service.

20 The doors on the left, which are side

21 facing, are going to stay of course, and then the

22 ones on the right are being enclosed within the new

23 addition so that we can make this whole larger area a

24 service write-up area.




1 MEMBER PAPP: That's all I have,

2 Madam Chair.


4 Any other comments? Mr. Shroyer.

5 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you,

6 Madam Chair.

7 I have several small items as well.

8 First of all, I'm going to go down here to the City.

9 Currently, there's a parking area

10 that's gravel behind Marty Feldman, and I don't know

11 if there's public parking there or if its cars from

12 the dealership. Is that on the P-1 or is that on the

13 older section?

14 MS. MCBETH: I'm just confirming by

15 looking at the aerial photo. That is primarily on

16 the B-3 portion of the property. I can show you on

17 the aerial photo. It shows up just vaguely on there

18 if you would like me to show you.

19 MEMBER SHROYER: So the parking area

20 that's proposed is actually further south than that,

21 and it will go all the way up to the ten-foot berm,

22 as I try to read the renderings.

23 MS. MCBETH: I'll zoom in a little

24 bit here. You can see the gravel area as reflecting




1 the light a little bit here. This is the car

2 dealership building itself. This is the gravel

3 area. The B-3 portion goes maybe about down this

4 line right here, and then the back part is zoned

5 parking. So I think this gravel area is partly on

6 the B-3, primarily on the B-3, maybe partly on the

7 parking section. So we expect that the parking lot

8 that would be constructed would extend slightly

9 farther back than that, because the berm is going to

10 take up maybe 60 feet of space or so along that back

11 property line.

12 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you. I was

13 just trying to get an understanding of that when I

14 was reviewing the plans.

15 A couple of comments. And most of

16 what I'm going to say has to do with the residents,

17 and again I'm glad to hear that they're part of it as

18 well and worked closely with you.

19 Right now, what they see is not near

20 as attractive as the front of the building,

21 obviously. The front and sides, I think, are very

22 well maintained. The back, there's some trash, some

23 scrap, shelves, tires, et cetera. There's currently

24 a wall, a concrete wall built there, and on part of




1 the wall is built a wooden fence on top of it. I

2 believe to help shield the trash containers.

3 Is that entire wall going to be

4 removed with the remodeling?

5 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Yes. The entire wall

6 will be down. We will be regrading the site. So

7 instead of being a drop-off, like you see of a few

8 feet -- it varies from, I think in the west it may be

9 three or four feet. As you move to the east --

10 maybe I've got it backwards, but it varies from

11 nothing to three or four feet. When we're done it's

12 going to be graded evenly with no drop-off.

13 MEMBER SHROYER: Good. Glad to hear

14 that too.

15 Another comment, I see from the

16 rendering and also from your board up here, you're

17 planning on painting the doors blue.

18 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Correct.

19 MEMBER SHROYER: I don't know when

20 that plan is in place, but what I'd probably

21 encourage is after the construction is done, the berm

22 it up, et cetera, I'd sure like to see the residents

23 or somebody go over to the residents' area, look

24 northward and see how much of the building can be




1 seen. Because the door that is currently white

2 doesn't stick out nearly as bad as the one that's

3 blue in the back. So, I mean, I don't think it would

4 be a major difference to Marty Feldman as to what

5 color the doors are painted, but you may consider

6 painting them white just to be less obtrusive.

7 MR. ZIMMERMAN: The rear door paint

8 color is very negotiable.

9 MEMBER SHROYER: I thought it was, so

10 I wanted to throw that out.

11 Now, to our new landscape architect, I

12 need to talk a little bit more about what

13 Commissioner Markham talked about, because I noted

14 too that the ten-foot berm is only four feet, in

15 reality, based on the grading.

16 We show a cross section of the berm, a

17 rendering, in our drawings. We don't show a

18 horizontal, lengthwise, view as to how much shielding

19 is actually going to be done. Do you have a good

20 feel as to the trees that are there, the pines and

21 what have you, that will be year-round and how much

22 thickness is there, the staggering, and the height of

23 the trees, et cetera. Fill us in a little bit more

24 on that, please.




1 MR. EVANCOE: Sure. I'll be happy to

2 do that.

3 The spacing that they have for their

4 plantings seem to be the appropriate spacing to

5 achieve the opacity that our ordinance seeks. The

6 cross section, as you recall, indicates that there's

7 a combination of deciduous shade trees as well as

8 evergreen trees. Primarily, you have your shade

9 trees on the lower toes of both sides of the berm,

10 and then towards the crest of the berm you have the

11 evergreen trees.

12 The sizes of these plant materials

13 going in are three-inch caliper for the shade trees,

14 seven to eight-foot height on the evergreen trees,

15 many of which are white pine, which is a rapidly

16 growing evergreen tree. So we do feel that it is a

17 satisfactory landscape plan, and feel that it will

18 achieve what the ordinance attempts to have.

19 MEMBER SHROYER: We haven't had some

20 recent disease problems with white pines as well? I

21 thought we had.

22 MR. EVANCOE: I see white pines being

23 planted in the community. I know that Toll Brothers

24 is currently using then at Island Lake. And every




1 tree has some pests. If you look through the

2 horticultural manuals, you'll see no tree or shrub

3 that's pest-free, and oftentimes it's a matter of

4 management and not planting too many together in one

5 place. But our ordinance would certainly say that if

6 they do die, or if they fail to thrive, that they're

7 going to be required to replace those with something

8 that will thrive.

9 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you.

10 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Our landscape

11 architect is here this evening, if you prefer to have

12 him comment on that as well.

13 MEMBER SHROYER: If he feels he needs

14 to, fine.

15 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Well, I guess if you

16 want him to, he will.

17 MEMBER SHROYER: No. No need to

18 then.

19 The last question I have would be

20 regarding the cars that would be parked on the back

21 lot. Are these the new cars for sale, are these the

22 cars that have been serviced, employee parking,

23 combination of all?

24 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Most of these will be




1 new cars. There is a designated area which is near

2 the rear service doors, which is for the parking for

3 the vehicles that will be ready for service, and then

4 there is also an area that we've got there for

5 employee parking. So it's a combination, really.

6 Most of it, of course, will be new cars sales.

7 MEMBER SHROYER: In particular, with

8 new cars being parked back there, then I need to ask

9 about security. What measures have been taken and

10 where do we stand on the lighting of that area?

11 MR. ZIMMERMAN: The new lighting will

12 be 25-foot poles, ordinance compliant. They'll be

13 shielded lighting. The lighting level is designed to

14 provide secure lighting. In other words, light

15 enough to make the lot visible and safe. Beyond

16 that, I guess I can't answer what security measures

17 there are, but I know that they're very sensitive to

18 it because they do lose a certain number of cars over

19 the course of a month or over the course of years.

20 And if -- I do have Mr. White here, who is the

21 general manager, if you would like to have him

22 respond to that, he might be able to give a more

23 complete response than I can.

24 MEMBER SHROYER: I just want to make




1 sure that somebody is not coming back six months from

2 now or a year from now, saying we need to put up a

3 chain link fence with barbed wire on it, something to

4 that effect. That's the concern I have.

5 MR. ZIMMERMAN: I don't think there's

6 any intent to do that at all. Particularly with a

7 ten-foot berm there, no one is going to drive out the

8 back.

9 MEMBER SHROYER: No. But we can lose

10 radios, CD players, et cetera, et cetera. And is the

11 lighting on all hours of the evening?

12 MR. ZIMMERMAN: I don't think the

13 intent is to keep it on 24 hours. Exactly how late

14 it's going to be on, is something they have yet to

15 decide.

16 MEMBER SHROYER: Has that been

17 discussed with residents behind it, do you know?

18 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Not to my knowledge.

19 Again, there should be no lighting spill over to the

20 residents, because we've got shielded lighting and

21 the light photometric sheet shows by the time you get

22 to the property line, you're at zeros all the way.

23 So we don't anticipate there being an impact on them

24 at all.




1 MEMBER SHROYER: I believe that's all

2 I have, Madam Chair, thank you.


4 MEMBER KOCAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

5 Do you know, sir, whether when the

6 Noise Analysis was conducted whether the ten-foot

7 berm was taken into consideration? Because I do not

8 read that in the Noise Analysis Report. It talks

9 about -- my concern, let me go to my concern.

10 It talks about the pneumatic hammer,

11 68 decibels. When I worked on the Noise Ordinance

12 back in 1996, we talked about decibel levels, and

13 just so that people know, a ten decibel jump is twice

14 as loud as the previous decibel level. So to go from

15 what is allowed, 60 decibels, to 68 decibels is

16 almost twice as loud as what is allowed in the

17 ordinance. This concerns me greatly, because you're

18 surrounded by a lot of residential.

19 So I'm looking at the Noise Analysis,

20 and it states that predictions were based on location

21 of the property lines, mechanical equipment, location

22 of service doors, and noise measurements at local

23 dealerships. But it doesn't say anything about the

24 ten-foot berm being taken into consideration.




1 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Our acoustical

2 consultant was given the information of the ten-foot

3 berm, and if it's not in the report, it's probably

4 just an oversight in mentioning it, but he had

5 complete information. He was out at the dealership.

6 He talked to Mr. White. He saw the dealership in

7 operation. He's extremely thorough.

8 MEMBER KOCAN: I know he is.

9 MR. ZIMMERMAN: And I guess I have

10 personally -- we've used him many times on many

11 different types of projects, and I expect if it's in

12 the report-

13 MEMBER KOCAN: I just wanted to be

14 sure that the ten-foot berm -- I was hoping,

15 actually, that it wasn't, because then it would

16 lower, the decibels, and would make me feel much more

17 comfortable. I am really not comfortable knowing

18 there is a possibility of there being 68 decibels

19 next to residential at any given time, even though it

20 says it's occasional, it's limited to once a month.

21 The general manager says he'll keep the doors

22 closed. Saying something and being there to actually

23 keep the doors closed all the time, it just concerns

24 me. But you worked with the apartment owners, so I'm




1 hoping that the apartment owners understand that a 68

2 Db. is pretty loud.

3 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Could I make a further

4 comment on this, please?

5 MEMBER KOCAN: Certainly.

6 MR. ZIMMERMAN: The pneumatic hammer

7 is not used all that frequently. When it is used,

8 even in the dealership now, there still is a door in

9 the bodyshop. There's a door in the service area

10 that does open out towards the rear, and right now,

11 those doors are left open in nice weather. And the

12 sound, when it is there, is not muffled with the

13 closed door at all.

14 So now that they're planning on moving

15 that line back to the rear line of the new doors, I

16 think that, operationally, it's in their best

17 interests to keep them closed, because they really

18 don't want to get into a problem with the

19 apartments. And I think they're very sensitive to

20 this issue of sound. Mr. White runs -- and the

21 Feldmans really run a rather taut ship there, and I

22 think that if they're told, and they know that they

23 do have to maintain these doors closed, that will be

24 done. I guess the proof will be in the actual




1 operations, but I have every confidence it will be

2 done. And if you would like to have Mr. White or

3 Mr. Feldman comment on that, they're here as well.

4 MEMBER KOCAN: I just want to be

5 certain that -- you know, we're trying to protect the

6 residents as much as possible, and I do appreciate

7 the fact that there has been considerable discussion

8 going back and forth. And I did call the City

9 earlier this week and asked again about the distance

10 between the dealership and the apartments, and I

11 believe -- Mr. Evancoe, can you-

12 MR. EVANCOE: Yes. I believe that we

13 did a rough measurement and that the proposed

14 facility is about 300 feet from the apartment

15 buildings to the south, and about 250 feet from the

16 portion of the apartments that come up along the west

17 side of the site.

18 MEMBER KOCAN: So that's a football

19 field away. With a ten-foot berm, I'm going to hope

20 that that gives enough protection.

21 The only other thing I'd like to

22 mention at this time, and it's not required as part

23 of this, but when I drove the site -- when you talk

24 about security, I looked at the security fence that's




1 already there that runs along the driveway to the

2 Fountain Park Apartments, and you may want to

3 recommend that they upgrade that fence at the same

4 time that they're upgrading the whole perimeter of

5 the property.

6 MR. ZIMMERMAN: It's already in the

7 works. They're going to be refurbishing the fence.

8 MEMBER KOCAN: Thank you. That's all

9 I have, Madam Chair.

10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have anyone

11 else? Mr. Avdoulos.

12 MEMBER AVDOULOS: I have a point of

13 clarification, and I guess I'm going to go to the

14 City first. On a Planning review chart, Page 3,

15 where we indicate Overhead Service Doors, Section

16 1403.7, that directs me to the B-2 district, which


17 indicates that: No truck well or loading dock,

18 overhead door, or other type may face a major

19 thoroughfare.

20 When I read through B-3, and I

21 couldn't find it, unless I went too fast, it doesn't

22 indicate anything about not permitting service doors

23 to face a major thoroughfare. And if that's the

24 case, then we don't need to go to the Zoning Board of




1 Appeals for the variance facing Grand River, because

2 we are B-3 -- if I'm reading this right.

3 MR. EVANCOE: Commissioner Avdoulos,

4 we'll take a quick look at that, and I think Barbara

5 may be in the best position to address that.

6 MS. MCBETH: Madam Chair, I believe I

7 might see that under the required conditions of B-3,

8 under Section 1503, Number 5:

9 No truck well, loading dock, overhead door, or

10 other type of service door may face a major

11 thoroughfare.

12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Could you repeat

13 that one more time?

14 MS. MCBETH: Yes. That was Section

15 1503, Number 5. In my book it's Page 3215.

16 No truck well, loading dock, overhead door, or

17 other type of service bay doors shall face a

18 major thoroughfare-

19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Keep going.

20 MS. MCBETH: (Continuing)

21 -nor an abutting residential district.

22 Pedestrian exits or emergency doors are

23 permitted on such building facades.





1 MEMBER AVDOULOS: And I just wanted to

2 make that clarification, because this particular

3 section directed you to B-2, and I'm almost positive

4 that we're looking at B-3. So I wanted to make sure,

5 and then my zoning book has a blank page somewhere in

6 there, so I didn't continue through my search.

7 Then with that, and I know we had

8 some correspondence regarding the doors facing south,

9 but I want to make sure we're not interrupting or

10 doing something that was stated before. I wanted to

11 make sure that the last motion that was granted for

12 this property for rezoning from RM-1 to PD-1 and B-3,

13 had a requirement that the doors on the proposed

14 building only open to the east and west and not to

15 the south. And I wanted to make sure that was the

16 last motion that was stated.

17 And I know at the beginning of the

18 meeting for this Public Hearing, Mr. Fisher indicated

19 that the building, the proposed building, is located

20 on the property -- I don't know if that wasn't

21 rezoned, or the original property. I don't know

22 where that delineation is, it was never shown on the

23 drawings.

24 MR. FISHER: I think part of the




1 building is in the area rezoned, as far as I know,

2 but there are no overhead doors within that area.

3 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Okay, but the way I

4 read it and I think the way the intent of the

5 previous Commission was, it didn't matter where the

6 actual line of building sat, it just says that any

7 doors on a proposed building, only open to the east

8 and to the west and not to the south. And it doesn't

9 delineate whether it stays on the property that was

10 rezoned or the original property, but I want to make

11 sure that if there was a motion that was passed and

12 had that stipulation on it, and the property was

13 rezoned with that in mind, that we, you know, make

14 sure that that is -- we're following that approval

15 process and we don't circumvent what was done

16 previous to us.

17 MR. FISHER: Madam Chair, may I

18 address that?

19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, Mr. Fisher,

20 if you would please address that.

21 MR. FISHER: Thank you.

22 We wrote a legal opinion previously

23 that clarified that the limitation on the overhead

24 doors would apply only to that area that was rezoned.




1 In other words, the property owner should not be

2 prejudiced with regard to that zoning he previously

3 had, as a result of a motion for rezoning of new

4 land.

5 And so the bottom line was that if the

6 overhead doors were on property that had previously

7 been zoned to permit the building facing the

8 residential, that that was not an impediment based

9 upon the condition imposed in the rezoning.

10 MEMBER AVDOULOS: And I read that,

11 but I still had problems with it because the only way

12 that the motion was granted in order for the rezoning

13 to happen, was with that stipulation of the building

14 itself. It didn't say whether that building was on

15 the previous property or not. I mean, I understand

16 what you're saying, but the only way that they could

17 do what they needed to do, is they have to rezone

18 this property and pick up the parking in the back and

19 do all that kind of stuff, but in order to get them

20 to where they are now, that was what was agreed to.

21 I mean, that's the way I'm reading

22 it. I'm not reading whether it's on existing

23 property or not. Even if they did rezone it, they

24 wouldn't be able to put the doors back there because




1 they wouldn't have a means of getting there.

2 MR. FISHER: Well, we wrote the page,

3 and it was our view. Obviously, you don't need to,

4 you know, there's no penalty of death for not

5 following our opinion.

6 MEMBER AVDOULOS: And I just wanted

7 to get a read from my fellow commissioners, if I was

8 reading it wrong or if I was reading too far into it,

9 but I was looking at the last motion that was passed

10 and I wanted to make sure we didn't circumvent what

11 the intent of that Planning Commission was.

12 Beyond that, I do agree with the other

13 comments, that I believe the ten-foot berm is pretty

14 substantial, and the way it's indicated on the site,

15 to provide a good buffer. The footcandles at the

16 property lines indicated that things were fine. The

17 additional landscaping on the islands are great and

18 it enhances the appeal of the existing parking lot.

19 And as a B-3 subject property, I think -- and it

20 seems like it meets all the requirements except for

21 that one piece of information that was left over that

22 I just wanted to get clarified. Otherwise, I don't

23 have any problems with it.

24 I am also pleased that the owners have




1 been working with the people in the apartments in

2 trying to get that resolved and coming to an amenable

3 conclusion. I want to make sure on this body, that

4 we're all on the same wavelength.

5 Thank you, Madam Chair.

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very

7 much.

8 Commissioner Paul.

9 MEMBER PAUL: Ms. McBeth, I have a

10 question for you: Does this site under the current

11 standards that we have for our ordinances, this site

12 as it's coming before us today, will it meet all of

13 our requirements?

14 MS. MCBETH: Yes. We took a look at

15 that a little bit earlier and we found that there

16 would be a couple of deficiencies with regard to the

17 front yard landscaping and the east side landscaping

18 would need to be about ten foot greater for each of

19 those sides. Other than that, it seems to meet the

20 building setback requirements and the other

21 requirements.

22 We haven't gone through all the

23 calculations to determine if it meets the interior

24 landscaping calculations and all of those. But just




1 from a preliminary look, it's pretty close. It would

2 need some additional buffering along Grand River and

3 along the east property line if it were constructed

4 brand new today.

5 MEMBER PAUL: When we enhance

6 Grand River and widen it, how much green space will

7 be remaining when that's widened?

8 MS. MCBETH: I believe that

9 Grand River is three lanes at this point, and if it

10 were widened to five lanes, we'd need another 11 or

11 12 feet for the laneage. I did that calculation

12 earlier today also, but I didn't write it down. So I

13 could do that calculation again to see how many feet

14 that would be.

15 MR. EVANCOE: I might add in here

16 also, that it's difficult to say at this stage for

17 sure that it would be equivalent to one additional

18 pavement, because that assumes the center line of the

19 road is not being adjusted from its current location

20 and what might happen under a five-lane improvement.

21 So it is possible that the road could shift, one side

22 or the other of the existing center line.

23 MEMBER PAUL: Is there anything,

24 Mr. Coburn, that has been developed yet for




1 Grand River and this corridor?

2 MR. COBURN: Not at the current time

3 for this section of Grand River, no.

4 MEMBER PAUL: We're mainly working on

5 the Novi Road, west section?

6 MR. COBURN: Currently Beck Road.

7 Grand River from Beck Road to Novi Road.

8 MEMBER PAUL: And this section is

9 also going to be improved but it's several years down

10 the line?

11 MR. COBURN: Yes. It's down the road

12 a few years, I think.

13 MEMBER PAUL: Okay. Is there any

14 way, as we're looking at this future planning, to

15 have some type of agreement that we're extending the

16 parking lot to the rear, is there any way that we

17 could possibly have any landscaping that we can

18 permit in the front of this site, and maybe eliminate

19 one or two parking spaces in the front, to add some

20 green space to the front of this site.

21 My fear is we're going to widen

22 Grand River. We're going to get very close to the

23 parking lot that already exists. It's already very

24 close to Grand River, and we're not going to have any




1 green space that abuts this property. And that's

2 just a concern. If there is anything we can think of

3 now for this parking lot that we're going to extend

4 in the rear, that we can somehow adjust the parking

5 spaces that they'll need.

6 MS. MCBETH: In looking at the plan.

7 To answer your first question, I think that the green

8 space from the right-of-way line to the road, extends

9 anywhere from 25 feet to 40 feet. That it's out in

10 the right-of-way area. On the site itself, they've

11 got about ten feet of green space. And if they were

12 to eliminate some parking spaces to acquire more

13 green space up at the front, they would most likely

14 eliminate the 30 spaces that are shown along the

15 frontage here, and the 18 spaces at that other

16 location, which might come close to defeating their

17 purpose of adding additional parking in the back.

18 MEMBER PAUL: I understand. Is the

19 detention basin large enough for the requirements of

20 this site as it sits?

21 MR. COBURN: Yes. There are some very

22 thorough calculations that I included in the packet

23 that demonstrate that.

24 MEMBER PAUL: Great. Thank you.




1 I would like to ask the Applicant if

2 there would be an agreement to have the facade and

3 the rear doors be all one color. So instead of it

4 being blue doors, have it matching your white facade

5 to the rear of the building.

6 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Oh, sure. Yes. As I

7 indicated before, the rear of the building, they can

8 be white.

9 MEMBER PAUL: That would be great.

10 That helps me a lot.

11 And for now, that's all I have,

12 Madam Chair.

13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Do we

14 have any further comments?

15 If not, I will support this, and the

16 only change I would like to see is the white pine. I

17 understand that there are diseases, and a lot of our

18 white pines in the City are dying. And if we put in

19 white pines, two years is not long enough for that to

20 become diseased and die. Also, the Austrian pines

21 are diseased in the City too.

22 That would be my only request, that

23 you change that. I would entertain a motion,

24 Madam Secretary.




1 MEMBER KOCAN: Madam Chair, I'd like

2 to ask a question of the staff because the motion

3 recommendations talk about motion to grant the

4 Special Land Use Permit to use the zoned P-1. Why is

5 that part of the motion and we're not just talking

6 about the whole Site Plan in general? Is the Special

7 Land Use just for the parking section, or is it for

8 the building and the service doors on the back?

9 MS. MCBETH: I guess to clarify that

10 a little bit. The Special Land Use is to allow the

11 use of the land zoned parking to be used for the car

12 storage lot. The other improvements that they're

13 proposing, the two additions to the building and the

14 service door are all permitted as a Permitted Use,

15 with the exception of that front service door, which

16 needs a variance.

17 MEMBER KOCAN: Which needs a variance,

18 did you say?

19 MS. MCBETH: Yes. For that front

20 service door. The rear doors, in the staff's

21 opinion, meet the requirements of the ordinance and

22 the intent of the previous approval.

23 MEMBER KOCAN: I'm looking at you like

24 -- then the Noise Analysis, they talked about the




1 noise coming from the building, is not relevant to

2 the Special Land Use for the parking area.

3 MS. MCBETH: Well, they provided a

4 Noise Analysis for the entire site. That's true.

5 For the existing conditions on the site, with the

6 additional improvements that were proposed.

7 MEMBER KOCAN: Because the Noise

8 Analysis was going to be part of my motion. I'll

9 just leave it in there because I want certain things

10 in there. So I'll take a stab at this.

11 In the matter of the request of

12 Marty Feldman Chevrolet, SP 02-44, motion to

13 grant approval of the Special Land Use Permit to

14 use the land zoned P-1, Vehicular Parking, for

15 parking for the sale of new, unlicensed, motor

16 vehicles, subject to the comments on the

17 attached review letters being addressed at the

18 time of the Final Site Plan Review, for the

19 following reasons: That there is a finding that

20 this site complies with Section 2516.2.C.4,

21 relative to compatibility with adjacent

22 property, as long as the service doors remain

23 closed when the pneumatic hammer is in use,

24 thereby meeting the City's Noise Ordinance, and




1 also that the ten-foot berm must attain opacity

2 requirements in a required period of time.

3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do I have a second

4 to that motion?



7 Mr. Sprague.

8 Mr. Ruyle.

9 MEMBER RUYLE: Do we need anything in

10 there about Mrs. Paul's agreement?

11 MEMBER KOCAN: That's a Site Plan

12 issue.

13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: That's a Site Plan

14 issue. They've already agreed to that twice.

15 MEMBER RUYLE: I just wanted to make

16 sure.

17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I was just going

18 to direct the Special Land Use first.

19 Mr. Fisher.

20 MR. FISHER: Because this approval

21 will be something that will be ongoing, we know that

22 there's a tool by the name of pneumatic hammer now.

23 There may be other tools that are utilized, so I

24 would suggest including in the motion: In addition




1 to the pneumatic hammer, other tools that render or

2 result in comparable noise output.

3 MEMBER KOCAN: I accept that addition

4 to the motion.


6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: So the amendment

7 is: Or other tools that render comparable output.

8 MR. FISHER: Yes.

9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And the motion was

10 seconded with that amendment.


12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: There is no further

13 discussion, Mr. Schmitt, if you would please call the

14 roll.

15 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

16 Commissioner Kocan.


18 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Markham.


20 MR. SCHMITT: Chairperson Nagy.


22 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Papp.


24 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Paul.





2 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Ruyle.


4 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Shroyer.


6 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Sprague.


8 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Avdoulos.


10 MR. SCHMITT: Motion passes 9 to 0.

11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very

12 much. Good luck.

13 I'm sorry. You're right, I

14 apologize. It's been a long day.

15 Commissioner Kocan, would you like to

16 continue?

17 MEMBER KOCAN: Yes, I would.

18 In the matter of the request of

19 Marty Feldman Chevrolet, SP 02-44, motion to

20 grant approval of the Preliminary Site Plan and

21 Storm Water Management Plan, subject to Zoning

22 Board of Appeal's variance for proposed service

23 doors, service bay doors, facing Grand River,

24 and subject to the comments on the attached




1 review letters being addressed at the time of

2 the Final Site Plan Review, as well as

3 replacements for the white pines and the ash

4 trees on the property, as well as changing the

5 rear door colors to match the building color.



8 Mr. Ruyle.

9 Is there any further discussion?

10 Oh, Mr. Sprague, you seconded that?

11 MEMBER SPRAGUE: We both said it at

12 the same time.

13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Well, I chose you

14 once and I'm choosing Mr. Ruyle. I'm being

15 democratic.

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Seconded by

17 Mr. Ruyle. If there is no further discussion,

18 Mr. Schmitt, would you please call the roll.

19 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

20 Commissioner Markham.


22 MR. SCHMITT: Chairperson Nagy.


24 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Papp.





2 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Paul.


4 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Ruyle.


6 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Shroyer.


8 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Sprague.


10 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Avdoulos.


12 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Kocan.


14 MR. SCHMITT: Motion passes 9 to 0.

15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very

16 much. Good luck.

17 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Thank you very much.

18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You're welcome.

19 With that, the Commission will take a

20 15-minute break.

21 (A brief recess was taken.)

22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I'd like to call

23 the meeting to order, please.





1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: The next item is

2 Matters for Consideration.


4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: The first item on

5 our Agenda is Meadowbrook Office Building, Site Plan

6 Number 01-04.

7 Consideration of the request of HEFCO

8 Properties for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan.

9 The subject property is located in Section 14, on the

10 southwest corner of Twelve Mile Road and Meadowbrook

11 Road in the OST, Office Service Technology district.

12 The developer is proposing a two-story office

13 building. Subject property is 4.68 acres.

14 Ms. McBeth.

15 MS. MCBETH: Thank you, Madam Chair.

16 I'll put a location map up that will

17 identify the site, which is located at the southwest

18 corner of Twelve Mile Road and Meadowbrook Road.

19 Subject property is currently developed with one

20 single family home and the remainder of the property

21 is vacant.

22 The property to the south is developed

23 single family homes which run onto Meadowbrook Road.

24 To the east and to the west is vacant land, to the




1 north across Twelve Mile Road is the Michigan State

2 University Toll Gate Education Center. The Master

3 Plan shows that the property outlined here in yellow

4 is Master Planned for office uses, as are the

5 properties to the west, to the east, and to the

6 south. To the north, the property is Master Planned

7 for the MSU Toll Gate Education Center.

8 The zoning map identified -- here

9 again the property is outlined in yellow -- subject

10 property is zoned OST, Office Service Technology, as

11 are the properties to the west, to the south, and to

12 the east across Meadowbrook Road. And to the north

13 across Twelve Mile Road, the property is zoned RA,

14 Residential Acreage.

15 We have a small version of the

16 Site Plan, which I'll orient, with north being up.

17 And again, Twelve Mile Road is located on the top

18 part of the page; Meadowbrook along the right side of

19 the page. The proposed Site Plan shows the two-story

20 office building, containing a total of 46,595 gross

21 leasable square feet. Two driveways are shown to

22 enter the site, one from Twelve Mile Road and the

23 other from Meadowbrook Road. The west part of the

24 site contains a wetland area, which continues off the




1 property to the west. The storm water detention area

2 is shown at the southwest corner of the property.

3 During review of the proposed

4 Site Plan, the City staff and consultants determined

5 that the following items should be brought to the

6 Planning Commission's attention. The Planning review

7 indicated that a Planning Commission waiver is

8 necessary for screening of the loading area from the

9 adjacent properties. The loading area is identified

10 right here by the main building to the north of the

11 building. The ordinance requires trucks, service,

12 and loading areas to be screened from adjacent

13 properties by a courtyard design of the building, by

14 an ornamental wall, or by a berm. The loading area

15 in this case is shown to have a landscaped island on

16 either side of this loading area, which may partially

17 screen the loading area from the adjacent

18 properties.

19 A second Planning Commission waiver is

20 needed for insufficient parking setback on the south

21 side of the property, right in this area. They would

22 be required to have 20 feet of parking lot setback,

23 and only 19.7 feet is proposed. The Planning

24 Commission may modify that requirement if it found




1 that there is excess parking setbacks or another

2 property line, and the Planning review letter did

3 point out that the west property line does have an

4 excess of that 20 feet of setback, with approximately

5 124 feet of setback provided on the west property

6 line.

7 A third issue from the Planning review

8 letter is that the required eight-foot wide safety

9 path, is not provided on this section of Twelve Mile

10 Road, west of the proposed driveway. There is a

11 wetland and there is grade change in that area. A

12 City Council waiver of the design and construction

13 standard is required if that safety path is not

14 installed.

15 The wetlands review indicated that a

16 minor Use Permit is needed for a temporary

17 disturbance of approximately 600 square feet of

18 wetland buffer in order to construct a retaining wall

19 in this area of the plan. Restoration of the wetland

20 buffer will take place following the construction of

21 that retaining wall. Administrative approval of the

22 permit can be granted if the Preliminary Site Plan is

23 approved. There are no woodlands existing on the

24 site.




1 The Landscaping review revealed two

2 Zoning Board of Appeals variances will be needed.

3 The first variance is for the lack of the berm or

4 wall along Twelve Mile Road and along part of

5 Meadowbrook Road. These arteries needing the

6 variance are adjacent to the building, and where the

7 wetland exists on the property. The second variance

8 is for the required interior parking lot landscaping.

9 The submitted plans are deficient in parking lot

10 landscaping by approximately 1,650 square feet.

11 The Traffic Engineers review indicated

12 only items that need to be addressed at the time of

13 Final Site Plan Review.

14 The Engineering review repeated that

15 need for the Council waiver of the safety path along

16 the west part of the Twelve Mile Road frontage and

17 other items that may be addressed at the time of

18 Final Site Plan Review.

19 The Fire Department review indicated

20 items that need to be addressed on the next submittal

21 of plans.

22 And we do have a small version of the

23 facade here. I think there is a large one on display

24 in front of the podium, as well as the facade board




1 is located in front of the podium.

2 The Facade review indicated that the

3 proposed building will be constructed primarily of

4 brick with cast stone. Spandrel glass is also

5 proposed, and it's shown on the facade board, mostly

6 on the south building elevation, is where that

7 Spandrel glass will be located.

8 The application is in compliance with

9 the facade ordinance, and the facade review indicated

10 that a Section 9 waiver is not required.

11 And I would like the Planning

12 Commissioners to note there is a letter from the

13 Applicant which was included in the Planning

14 Commission's packets, that addresses each of these

15 waivers and variances that were highlighted in the

16 various review letters.

17 Thank you, Madam Chair. That

18 concludes my presentation.


20 Ms. McBeth.

21 Yes, Mr. Ruyle.

22 MEMBER RUYLE: Can we get a

23 clarification, please?

24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Would you like to




1 ask Ms. McBeth-

2 MEMBER RUYLE: (Interposing) Yes, I

3 would.

4 Would you put up the zoning map again,

5 please, overhead. In their infinite wisdom the

6 City Council decided to go against one of our

7 decisions. Where is the new condominium site going

8 in, that's residential now. Is that further down, or

9 is it right next to this?

10 MS. MCBETH: The proposed Singh

11 development that was discussed?

12 MEMBER RUYLE: Off of Meadowbrook.

13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Further down.

14 MS. MCBETH: It is further down. It

15 would be back in -- I don't have the exact line, but

16 it would be around this vicinity, in here.

17 MEMBER RUYLE: Okay, but it does not

18 abut this property.

19 MS. MCBETH: It does not abut this

20 property.

21 MEMBER RUYLE: Thank you.


23 Ms. McBeth.

24 Would the Applicant like to add




1 anything further? If you would please state your

2 name and spell it for our court reporter.

3 MR. FRIEDLAENDER: Yes. Good evening.

4 I'm the Applicant. Howard Friedlaender,

5 F-r-i-e-d-l-a-e-n-d-e-r. The address is

6 5138 Village Commons Drive, West Bloomfield.

7 Along with me this evening are

8 Dan Miron, the Building Architect from Ron Jona &

9 Associates. Jim Ludwig, the landscape architect,

10 Dennis Chegash the engineer with Landtech. They're

11 available to answer any questions that you might

12 have.

13 After I give you an overview of these


14 issues, Dan is going to add some information about

15 the building itself. And he's going to help me, as I

16 go through this, and point to the plan that we've got

17 up there to make sure that you understand what areas

18 we're talking about.

19 As indicated, I sent you a letter

20 identifying the items for consideration. I'd like to

21 give you an overview of the planning issues that we

22 went through, and the building and site features that

23 are involved in each of these items. Unlike the

24 typical OST project in this zoning district, we are




1 proposing here a pure office building. So it's not

2 going to be like many of the projects that have

3 office and shop in the same facility. This is going

4 to be a pure office building.

5 The likely occupants will be

6 professionals or corporate activities. So one of the

7 issues which is the screening for the loading area,

8 the ordinance seems to be geared towards protecting

9 against the view of overhead doors, busy

10 loading/unloading activities, that may require large

11 trucks. We aren't going to have any of those at this

12 project. The typical truck is going to be a Fed Ex

13 or UPS type of truck coming in and out quickly.

14 Those folks usually park near the door, so after, you

15 know, attempting to put the loading area in various

16 places, we concluded that it should be near the door,

17 where they're going to park anyhow. Landscape it as

18 well as we can to screen it and provide a safe area

19 that isn't in the way.

20 We've also been asked by JCK during

21 the planning, to deal with the right-of-way on the

22 Meadowbrook Road side, by designing to the future

23 right-of-way rather than the existing right-of-way.

24 We've done that as they requested,




1 however a couple of issues have arisen. One, it

2 wasn't mentioned earlier but was in the Traffic

3 review, suggested that we would need a City Council

4 waiver as a result of having the safety path along

5 Meadowbrook Road be located four feet within the

6 future right-of-way. By putting it there, it is

7 outside of the existing right-of-way, where ordinance

8 says it should be. We wanted to maintain the 20-foot

9 buffer though, so if we placed it one-foot within the

10 right-of-way as usually is done, we would have had a

11 smaller green belt on the side. So in discussion

12 with JCK, Victoria Webber, she agreed with the

13 concept that we're proposing. We maintained the

14 20-foot buffer and berm, and then located the

15 sidewalk, which then ends up being four feet, inside

16 the future right-of-way.

17 So I don't know if not mentioning that

18 earlier means that contrary to what the review letter

19 said, we don't need a City Council waiver. If we do,

20 then we're requesting your favorable recommendation

21 to pursue that.

22 Next issue, related to that same

23 right-of-way, by designing to the future right-of-way

24 we have a shortage of interior parking lot




1 landscape. The review stated that the amount that

2 we're short is 1,554 square feet. I think we had an

3 error in some of the information we provided. We've

4 recalculated it. We are still short, we believe,

5 1,188 feet. I don't think the size of the shortage

6 matters, because if we were to redesign this to the

7 existing right-of-way, and then move that extra

8 landscape that would have been on Meadowbrook into

9 the parking lot, which we could do, we would pick up

10 1,764 additional available feet of green space in the

11 parking lot. So we would definitely satisfy the

12 ordinance.

13 However, if the road at Meadowbrook is

14 widened and some of that green belt taken, we'd be

15 concerned, as I think the City might, it would be

16 inadequate. We would rather leave the green belt at

17 Meadowbrook. We feel that we have a nice buffer all

18 the way around the parking area. There is plenty of

19 landscape there. We still have a generous amount of

20 landscape islands in the parking lot. So we would be

21 looking for your favorable recommendation for a ZBA

22 variance that we would seek.

23 In designing the site the way we did,

24 one of our earlier layouts was more typical with the




1 building set back further from the road frontages and

2 parking all the way around the building. After

3 looking at that, we decided that the traffic

4 circulation would be somewhat confusing. It requires

5 four different entrances to the building, because

6 you've got parking all the way around it, and it

7 takes away from having a central entranceway where

8 you can make a statement and be sure that this is the

9 right place to have your central entrance.

10 Because the building is not too large,

11 we were able to consolidate the parking all on one

12 side, put the building right up at the setback on

13 both road frontages, so that we allow the building to

14 be seen. We think it's attractive architecture.

15 We've got nice landscaping, we thought why hide the

16 building, why set it back, why surround it with

17 parking, let's put it right up at the street and let

18 everybody see it and not block it with parking. So

19 by doing that, have three entrances instead of four,

20 so we have a cleaner view of the building along

21 Twelve Mile. The main entrance is clearly the one

22 facing the parking area, although we still have

23 secondary entrances on the sides. So that's what's

24 behind that decision.





1 However, that raises the issue,

2 another one of the potential variance issues,

3 concerning the berm. We have provided the berm

4 around the parking area at Meadowbrook Road. We've

5 also provided it on the west of the driveway at

6 Twelve Mile where we have parking area, however we

7 have not placed it around the building along Twelve

8 Mile and Meadowbrook.

9 In reading the ordinance, it states

10 there's two reasons to have these berms in the intent

11 of the ordinance. One is to screen parking areas --

12 which doesn't apply around the building; and the

13 second is to provide kind of a nice scenery from the

14 road when viewing the site from the right-of-way.

15 We've got nice architecture. We've got a lot of

16 beautiful landscaping. I don't think it would add

17 anything and would actually detract to put a berm up

18 that would hide some of that. It could be done, but

19 we feel that the intent of the ordinance is

20 satisfied. We are screening our parking where we

21 have it and we're providing a nice, interesting, view

22 from the rights-of-way.

23 So concerning the berm around the

24 building, we seek your favorable recommendation to




1 pursue that with the Zoning Board.

2 Lastly, we've got a couple of site

3 features. We have a wetland area at the northwest

4 corner of the site, and there are also a couple of

5 retaining walls. So while we've provided the safety

6 path everywhere else on the site, we do not have a

7 safety path west of the Twelve Mile entranceway. We

8 talked to the City engineers about this, and what we

9 provided was evidence that the existing grade, if you

10 try and locate a safety path between these, if you've

11 gone out there, there are a couple of retaining walls

12 in what appears to be a path that you could walk

13 down. However, in terms of the City's engineering

14 standards, they are not satisfactory. The grades

15 drop off too steeply there to be safe, and the space,

16 the width of it at the narrowest spot is not wide

17 enough to satisfy the standards.

18 So the only way to have a safety path

19 in this area, would be to build something up on

20 stilts over a wetland area, and it would dead-end in

21 mid-air because there is no safety path continuing

22 westerly. So we've left that out, and I believe

23 that would be a City Council waiver that we would ask

24 you to support.




1 Mentioned earlier, is also this 19.7

2 feet of setback along the south property line instead

3 of 20 feet. That results because we set the building

4 and site up to be parallel to Twelve Mile, which is

5 where we front. This site is not perfectly square,

6 so we do achieve 20 feet of setback for a portion of

7 that area, but at the narrowest it goes down to 19.7

8 feet because that rear property line is not exactly

9 parallel to the front property line. So hopefully,

10 the excess setback that we provided on the west will

11 allow you to grant us a waiver there.

12 I think I've covered everything that's

13 in my letter. Dan can tell you something more about

14 the building itself, and then any questions that you

15 might have for any of us, we'll be glad to answer.

16 Thank you.

17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very

18 much.

19 MR. MIRON: Good evening. My name is

20 Dan Miron, M-i-r-o-n. I'm a senior architect at

21 Ron Jona & Associates, and I'd like to give you a

22 little tour of our design.

23 As Howard mentioned, we desired to

24 place the building up against the setbacks on




1 Meadowbrook and Twelve Mile, primarily because we

2 think the building is very attractive, and we didn't

3 want to surround the building with parking. We

4 purposely kept the parking to the back of the site so

5 that the views from Twelve Mile would be more

6 attractive.

7 One of the features of the building

8 that we particularly like -- and I apologize for

9 stepping away from the podium.

10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If you would take

11 the hand mike, sir, then you can move and talk at the

12 same time.

13 MR. MIRON: Is it on? Okay.

14 On the south side of the building,

15 we've got an entrance colonnade, which you can see --

16 I'll hold this up. You can see on the bottom

17 elevation, that large curved element, which will

18 welcome visitors into the building. That is the main

19 entrance into the building. We've got secondary

20 exits on the west and east elevations, and on all

21 four elevations, we have used what we refer to as a

22 superframe elevation that creates focal points on

23 each elevation. And we've used on the two stair

24 elements, two different types of glass. A reflective




1 -- not a reflective. A translucent and a transparent

2 glass, to create that sort of eye on the world, as we

3 like to call it.

4 And then on the Twelve Mile frontage,

5 we've got an area of reflective glass, and then we

6 have tinted glass that continues on down. We've

7 stepped the corners of the building, which you can

8 see on the Site Plan. Both corners of the building

9 step back, and that was done for a couple of reasons.

10 One, to respond to the site geometry. We have got a

11 slight chamfer on the corner, so we had to set that

12 side back. And we wanted the front to be

13 symmetrical, so it creates a lot of interest as

14 you're traveling down Twelve Mile, the sawtooth

15 effect. It also will create valuable office space on

16 the inside for corner offices.

17 We've used, primarily, an earth tone

18 brick on the building, which you can see here. And

19 then we've got the superframes are made of this rough

20 textured cast stone, and then we've got pin striping

21 that goes on the building, with a bull nose edge on

22 it to soften the more square geometry of the

23 building. We've shielded the rooftop units by

24 incorporating screens that tie the superframe on the




1 front and the back of the building together. So when

2 you see this element, it continues back to the south

3 elevation. And the roof top units are all screened

4 in that area, so we think we've achieved that

5 successfully.

6 The rendering that you're looking at

7 does not accurately depict all the landscape material

8 that we've included on the landscape plan. That

9 rendering was prepared in advance of when the

10 landscape plan was finished, so it really doesn't

11 depict how lush the landscaping is going to be. We

12 believe it's going to be very beautiful when it's

13 finished and that's part of the reason why we don't

14 believe the berm or a screen wall is desirable along

15 Twelve Mile or Meadowbrook. Because we've gone to

16 such effort to make both those elevations attractive,

17 we think it would be counter-productive.

18 And in closing, I guess I would say

19 that we think we've designed a building that is

20 timeless and that it won't fade in its appeal over

21 time. It's not trendy. We didn't want to do

22 anything that was not in keeping with the character

23 of the community. We believe the colors, the

24 textures of the material are complementary to the




1 context, which has more of a rural character with the

2 property across Twelve Mile being kind of a large

3 open area, so we believe it will be an asset to the

4 community and will complement the context.

5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Does

6 the Applicant have anything else to add?

7 If not, I'll turn this over to the

8 Commission.

9 Do I have any questions from any of

10 the Commissioners? Who would like to start?

11 Commissioner Paul.

12 MEMBER PAUL: I do not have any

13 concerns about the south side and the rear setback

14 being only 19.7 when it's supposed to be 20 feet.

15 I'm in agreement with that.

16 I have a question for, I think,

17 Ms. McBeth, for the gross leasable. When I read

18 Mr. Arroyo's letter, I just want to clarify it again

19 for my specifications. 48,696 square feet was

20 mentioned on one section. And another section was

21 41,388. And my guess is two different people did the

22 review, and so there was a slight variation. Can you

23 tell me which is being utilized?

24 MS. MCBETH: Yes. For the parking




1 calculations they used the 46,595 square feet figure,

2 which is, of course, less than the gross leasable

3 area of 48,000 but it's more than the 41,000 that you

4 saw on another plan.

5 MEMBER PAUL: Which is the gross

6 leasable area? There are two numbers.

7 MS. MCBETH: Right. We would like to

8 have that clarified at the time of Final Site Plan

9 Review. At this point, we're going with the 46,595

10 square feet.

11 MEMBER PAUL: I can't support that.

12 I would like to know what that's going to be now

13 because that very much is important to us at this

14 moment to look at the parking lot spaces. There is a

15 question in the parking lot area, and I really would

16 like to have that result before I can go any

17 further. Could the Applicant maybe clarify which one

18 is the accurate space?

19 MR. MIRON: Okay. 46,595 square feet

20 is the gross leasable floor area, which we used to

21 determine the parking requirement. That is an

22 accurate number. The 48,696 square feet is the total

23 square footage of the building, but that's not the number

24 you use to determine parking.




1 MEMBER PAUL: Okay. How does 48,398

2 come in there?

3 MR. MIRON: I do not know.

4 MEMBER PAUL: Okay. So we're going

5 to go by the 46, and that's your parking

6 calculations.

7 MR. MIRON: Yes.

8 MEMBER PAUL: With that, how many --

9 are there 69 parking spaces -- I'm sorry, I'm

10 thinking of the previous site. For the 46,000 square

11 feet, the parking lot spaces that are provided, are

12 you happy with the number, Ms. McBeth?

13 MS. MCBETH: Yes, we are. The number

14 that are required, based on the square footage of the

15 46,595 is 210 spaces, and 210 spaces are provided.

16 MEMBER PAUL: For the Applicant: How

17 many employees are going to be using this building,

18 because 210 spaces is a lot. Is that what you need

19 for the employees, or can you give me a specific

20 number of employees that you will have?

21 MR. FRIEDLAENDER: At this point, we

22 don't know how many employees there would be in the

23 building, because we haven't leased it. We provided

24 210 under the ordinance, feeling that that's




1 sufficient. And when we do lease the building, we

2 would be sure that we didn't lease to any mixture of

3 tenants that would exceed that number, you know.

4 There are some businesses that could potentially need

5 additional parking, and that would be a nightmare

6 that, you know, I don't expect to get myself into.

7 MEMBER PAUL: So currently you do not

8 have a tenant for this building.


10 MEMBER PAUL: I was very pleased to

11 see that the Applicant resolved all of Mr. Arroyo's

12 lighting questions. All of those issues were

13 answered on the 1-9-03 letter.

14 I really appreciate the building on a

15 corner part of this site being Twelve Mile and

16 Meadowbrook corner. I appreciate this building being

17 in the front of the property, instead of the parking

18 lot being in the front. I also appreciate the berm

19 in the rear of the parking lot screening the parking

20 lot that is existent, so that the corridor on

21 Meadowbrook will be screened. Also between the two

22 OST buildings it will be screened.

23 I do have concerns that eight parking

24 lot islands are not on the plan. I also have a




1 problem with the wetland buffer. The wetland buffer

2 is just barely encroached upon, but when you're doing

3 the engineering for this plan, I think we need to

4 ask, you, Mr. Coburn, I know that we can take some

5 real serious measures to be wary of the wetland

6 buffer, but there are ten spaces that are right on

7 that buffer. Is there a necessity for those ten

8 spaces?

9 MR. EVANCOE: I think if it's okay, I

10 might be able to answer that.

11 It's difficult to say, since they

12 don't have a tenant, whether those are necessary or

13 not, but unfortunately the ordinance requires 210

14 spaces to be provided on the site, and otherwise they

15 would have to prove some type of hardship as to why

16 they cannot provide that, and go for the ZBA

17 variance. Whether that -- you know, in that

18 particular location it's hard to say if they're

19 needed. It would certainly appear that the parking

20 that is most needed is in the main parking lot, not

21 so much as along this entry drive coming off of

22 Twelve Mile. But due to the existing wetlands, the

23 need for the detention pond, they ended up having to

24 place some parking along that driveway to achieve the




1 210.

2 MEMBER PAUL: I don't have a problem,

3 again, with the berm being eliminated on the corner

4 of Twelve Mile and Meadowbrook with the copious

5 amount of landscaping provided on the plan. But if

6 it was in the middle of Twelve Mile, I would have a

7 problem with it being a break. But to accentuate

8 this corner, I think, it is a good landmark.

9 There is a comment I'd like to address

10 to the Applicant. Just when you're going to build

11 this site, when I looked at the interior -- and this

12 is not reflecting the decision at all about the plan,

13 I just want to make a comment. When you open the

14 door to the rest rooms, it is -- on one of the rest

15 room doors, you can clearly see the urinals, or you

16 can clearly see the mirror to the women's rest room.

17 There is a way to put a slight little hallway door to

18 get to that, to eliminate that visibility. I think

19 it would just be a suggestion for you.

20 MR. MIRON: We would be glad to supply

21 that.

22 MEMBER PAUL: That's all for right

23 now. I think I'd like to turn it over for more

24 people to comment on the parking lot islands and the




1 size of the square footage of this building.

2 Thank you.


4 Mr. Ruyle.

5 MEMBER RUYLE: Thank you.

6 Mr. Friedlaender, just for my own

7 clarification, you do not have a tenant for this

8 building. Are you seeking a one-tenant occupancy or

9 are you seeking multi-tenant?

10 MR. FRIEDLAENDER: Either. Right now

11 the building site is listed with Freedman Real Estate

12 and we're seeking a tenant or tenants. If I had 50

13 percent of the building preleased, I would be able to

14 finance the construction of it, and then fill up the

15 remainder of it. So if we got somebody to take one

16 floor, we'd proceed with the building. If somebody

17 wanted the whole building, we'd proceed. If we had a

18 couple of different tenants that assembled 50 percent

19 of the space, we would proceed. The market place is

20 going to determine that.

21 MEMBER RUYLE: Once again,

22 clarification. I know the answer, but I'm going to

23 ask it anyway. This is strictly office? There is

24 nothing strange about it; I mean, we're not going to




1 have a workshop in there or anything like that,

2 right?


4 knowledge. We designed it as an office building and

5 expect to get an office tenant. If somebody came

6 with an unusual use that had, you know, some

7 ancillary use that went along with office, as long as

8 it worked in the building and under the ordinance,

9 you know, I don't see why we'd preclude it, but I

10 don't really expect anybody, you know.

11 The kinds of businesses that go into

12 the single story buildings with office and shop, are

13 a different type of tenant. So I would expect we're

14 going to see professionals or corporate activities,

15 either big corporations looking for a local

16 headquarters, or a regional office for some corporate

17 activity, but I can't tell you that they wouldn't do

18 something that, when you say funny, you know -- I'm

19 expecting, you know, 100 percent office type usage.

20 MEMBER RUYLE: I have no problem with

21 it. That was just for clarification purposes, and I

22 agree with Commissioner Paul about the fact that

23 where the building is located at Twelve Mile and

24 Meadowbrook, I'd like to see that berm eliminated and




1 get the ZBA waiver for that also, and do the proper

2 landscaping.

3 That's all I have now, Madam Chair.

4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Do we

5 have anyone else?

6 Mr. Sprague.

7 MEMBER SPRAGUE: Thank you. Sort of a

8 follow-up with the question for the Planning

9 Department. If we -- what protects us from the use

10 of the building not being completely office, such

11 that it would necessitate a loading area beyond what

12 they envision currently with UPS trucks and stuff?

13 MS. MCBETH: Typically what happens

14 is when the tenant comes in for a Certificate of

15 Occupancy, the Building Department would make sure

16 that was a permitted use, oftentimes checking with

17 the Planning Department to make sure that was a

18 permitted use. They wouldn't necessarily check to

19 find out if it was a use that required a lot of

20 loading and unloading, and those type of uses, but I

21 believe the way the building is being designed,

22 that's likely how it's going to be marketed towards

23 those types of tenants.

24 If they needed to have an additional




1 loading space supplied, then they would have to come

2 back to the Planning Department for a review of that

3 loading area for the Planning Department to take a

4 look at.

5 MEMBER SPRAGUE: So if they had a

6 tenant that needed more loading -- I mean they

7 haven't built out the business, the building, of

8 course. If they had a tenant come to them and, say,

9 they wanted half the building, but they needed to be

10 able to bring bigger trucks in, you're saying they

11 would have to come back to get permission to do that?

12 MS. MCBETH: Yes. If they needed an

13 additional loading zone, or a loading bay door or

14 something like that, that would be considered a

15 revision to the approved Site Plan, they would have

16 to come back to the Planning Department and we would

17 make a determination whether it needed to come back

18 to the Commission for review.

19 MEMBER SPRAGUE: Who decides if they

20 need loading capacity beyond what they have?

21 MS. MCBETH: I imagine the Applicant

22 would ask the City for that additional provision if

23 the tenant in the building said that they needed to

24 have that additional loading area.




1 MEMBER SPRAGUE: Is there any way we

2 could -- I don't know that it's an issue. I mean, if

3 it's an office building and it's just UPS trucks, I

4 really don't have an issue with the loading area.

5 What I don't want to see happen, is us approve it

6 with the variance and then find out that there's a

7 tenant that's bringing in, not a huge truck, but a

8 big truck periodically, parking it there and we've

9 already given them permission to do that, and there's

10 nothing we can do about that.

11 MS. MCBETH: Perhaps, other than

12 asking the Applicant to put something on the record

13 stating what kind of tenants he would be looking for,

14 or maybe making that a condition of approval -- those

15 could be avenues, I think.

16 MEMBER SPRAGUE: So we can make that

17 a condition of approval?


19 MR. FISHER: Yes, I think you can

20 clarify that in some form, such as that the waiver

21 would contemplate the absence of trucks other than

22 customary delivery trucks such as UPS and the like.

23 If that's satisfactory with the Applicant.

24 MR. SPRAGUE: Thank you.





2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: (Interposing)

3 Excuse me. It's still the Commission table. Could

4 you wait until you're asked a question, and then you

5 could come up here so we can all hear you.

6 MEMBER SPRAGUE: The other is the

7 issue of the safety path to the west side of the

8 street. Can you describe to me what is planned for

9 all of that stretch along Twelve Mile? I don't think

10 it makes sense to build a path that hangs out in the

11 middle of nowhere. That's just now. I don't know

12 what's going into the properties next to it, and what

13 it would look like. If that's an environmentally

14 sensitive area, are we not going to put up

15 boardwalks, or what is the plan at this point for

16 that little stretch?

17 MR. COBURN: The stretch on the west

18 side of the site, you're talking about on the south

19 side of Twelve Mile. That's a tough stretch. You've

20 got a culvert coming underneath the street, you've


21 got a wetland area there. I'm not quite sure what

22 will happen with that. Master Plan says we'll have a

23 pedestrian or a bike path there, however I'm not sure

24 how we're going to do that at this point.




1 MEMBER SPRAGUE: What do we have, you

2 know, starting with the mall, moving down Twelve

3 Mile, do we have a bike path off of Twelve Mile to

4 the mall. We've got a PD-2 development coming in

5 there, and then you've got the DMC. What does that

6 whole stretch got in front of it now?

7 MR. COBURN: Most of that area is

8 under construction now with the Twelve Mile Gap

9 Project. I'm not quite sure if they're putting in

10 bike paths as part of that or not.

11 MS. McCLAIN: I'm stealing the

12 microphone from him. I'll identify myself for the

13 court reporter. My name is Nancy McClain,

14 M-c-C-l-a-i-n, the City Engineer.

15 And yes, there will be an eight-foot

16 bike path along that part of Twelve Mile Road when

17 that is completed this summer.

18 MEMBER SPRAGUE: Okay. Thank you.

19 Those are my major questions. I'm

20 sure the Commission will deal with other items. I do

21 like the placement of the building and the look of

22 the building, and think that that's a good spot for

23 that exact type of building. So overall, I support

24 the development, and I just want to make sure some of





1 these other issues are dealt with. Thank you.


3 Mr. Evancoe, did you want to say

4 something?

5 MR. EVANCOE: Yes. Thank you,

6 Madam Chair. Yes, just to follow-up Commissioner

7 Sprague's comments about the bike path.

8 I think that that is a serious issue,

9 because I think that if the Applicant does not

10 provide this gap to the west of their driveway, then

11 I suppose the City someday would be expected to come

12 in with its funds and provide that. And really, the

13 obligation for that kind of an installation, despite

14 the fact that it's quite expensive at times, does

15 fall to the developer that owns that property. So I

16 just wanted to make that statement.

17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very

18 much.

19 Is there anyone else who would like to

20 address their comments.

21 Mr. Shroyer.

22 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you. Do we

23 know who owns the property to the immediate west of

24 that, and has there been any discussion at all of




1 development of that property?

2 MS. MCBETH: I don't know without

3 checking who the owner of that property is, and to my

4 knowledge, we haven't had any meetings with that

5 property owner to discuss development of that parcel.

6 MEMBER SHROYER: So at this point, no

7 preliminary discussions. That's fine.

8 Anyone that follows the Planning

9 Commission, and I know not many people do because

10 it's boring, but -- tell it like it is -- those who

11 do follow it know that when I see waivers and

12 variances, my ears turn red. It really concerns me.

13 This building, however, and the way the Applicant

14 wrote the letter of explanation to the waivers and

15 the variances, and his very, very, adequate

16 explanation verbally this evening, I am in favor --

17 and you won't hear me say that much -- but I am in

18 favor of the majority of the waivers and variances.

19 I do, however, have to say even though

20 the building is gorgeous, I love it -- I'm not the

21 architect on the Commission, but I know what I like,

22 and I like it. Maybe the architect does too, we'll

23 hear from him later perhaps, but I agree with

24 Commissioner Sprague that the concerns of the safety




1 path is very serious. And what I'd like to ask our

2 attorney, is what is the best method of assuring that

3 when the property to the west is developed, that the

4 Applicant would be required to fulfill his obligation

5 of that section at that time. In other words, I'm

6 not -- we may not require him to do it right now, but

7 when that property is developed and the path has

8 somewhere to go, I want it to be able to go

9 somewhere. Can we do that, and if so, how do we do

10 it?

11 MR. FISHER: In other words, not

12 require it at the moment, but defer it?

13 MEMBER SHROYER: Until such time as

14 the property to the adjacent western border is

15 developed.

16 MR. FISHER: Well, what we could do in

17 that event, is require the establishment of a

18 covenant that would be recorded with the Registrar of

19 Deeds, that would essentially be a petition for an

20 assessment of this property, to get that done. And

21 then it would provide that the property owner would

22 have the right to do it, but failing the property

23 owner undertaking this project within a specified

24 period of time on notice from the City, then the City




1 would have the right to do it and assess the property

2 owner.


4 might interject. I believe that we already went

5 through something like this at Haggerty and Fourteen.

6 MR. EVANCOE: North Novi Medical. We

7 talked about it.


9 MR. FISHER: Something very similar,

10 that's right.

11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And didn't we use

12 some sort of a bond? Mr. Evancoe, do you recall?

13 MR. EVANCOE: Yes. I'm trying to

14 remember that as well. We may have talked about

15 placing money in escrow for that. The downside, of

16 course, of that was taking in today's dollars with an

17 unknown future expenditure. Even though we can take

18 in more than just today's dollars, you almost always

19 underestimate your costs when you do that.

20 The advantage, I think, of

21 Mr. Fisher's proposal is that we determine the cost

22 at that time, and make an accurate assessment against

23 the property.





1 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. Turning back

2 to the Applicant, do you understand what we're

3 discussing here? And in throwing that out, my

4 question would be would you rather spend the money

5 currently, and have a bike path that goes nowhere, a

6 safety path that goes nowhere, in today's dollars, or

7 be in a position of a potential assessment down the

8 road along the lines of assurance that that would be

9 connected, knowing that that property may not be

10 built for 15 years, and the money will be inflated

11 substantially between now and then?

12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Friedlaender,

13 would you please approach the podium. I think the

14 Commissioner addressed the question properly to you.



17 philosophically, I guess I would be in favor of

18 Mr. Fisher's proposal. That to guess what it should

19 cost today, we don't really know what needs to go

20 there. Maybe nothing will ever go there, maybe

21 something different than we might imagine should go

22 there, will end up going there, so it makes sense to

23 earmark the obligation to participate in the future

24 event if and when that takes place.




1 I guess my only reluctance is that I

2 would hope that there's some obligation for it to be

3 reasonable under the circumstances that are reviewed

4 at that time. You know, not knowing what reasonable

5 would be, or what beyond reason would be. But it's,

6 you know, a little scary to think about a future

7 obligation that's not specified. You know, it

8 shouldn't end up costing more than a bike path should

9 cost in the future. Given that it's going to

10 navigate some difficult terrain, or have something

11 unusual perhaps, you know, above and beyond just

12 regular concrete or whatever they're supposed to be

13 made of.

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Fisher might

15 have something to add to your concern.

16 MR. FISHER: I would say if we put it

17 within a reasonable discretion of the City, so that

18 you can challenge it if you think it was being

19 abused.

20 MR. FRIEDLAENDER: That sounds fine to

21 me.

22 MEMBER SHROYER: There may even be a

23 possibility of going around the wetland and making a

24 connection here or there or something as opposed to




1 that construction, and that will be reviewed at that

2 time.

3 MR. FRIEDLAENDER: I would hate to,

4 you know, get into having to rip out the retaining

5 walls, rebuild, you know, this the entire area. We

6 do have a wetland though. I mean, perhaps, you know,

7 some allowance may need to be made to cross it

8 somehow in a reasonable fashion. Again, the City

9 would be, you know, able to grant some permission if

10 it made sense to get the bike path over there.

11 MEMBER SHROYER: We've done that

12 before. Thank you.

13 With those comments, I am in favor of

14 this proposal, or this application I should say. But

15 only with the support of Mr. Fisher's

16 recommendation.

17 Thank you, Madam Chair.


19 Commissioner Kocan.

20 MEMBER KOCAN: I think I'm in the

21 minority here when I'm going to talk about the things

22 that I'm concerned about, because there are a number

23 of things. And the very first thing is the loading

24 area. I do not consider the main entrance to this




1 gorgeous office building to be a loading dock. And

2 not a loading dock, but a loading zone area. It will

3 completely block the entrance. I do not believe the

4 intent of our ordinance is such that it's supposed to

5 be a drive-up kind of a spot.

6 And I could be wrong, but I listened

7 to other commissioners from previous Commissions, who

8 have stated you may not think that there's going to

9 be deliveries, but there will be moving vans to move

10 in office furniture. There could be -- there could

11 be a number of trucks that will required to be in an

12 office building, particularly the size of this

13 building.

14 I will not support the loading dock at

15 the front entrance. I believe it needs to be -- to

16 have its own parking spot, perhaps on the west side

17 of the building, where there's an entrance. An

18 unpopular comment would be maybe we need to reduce

19 the size of the building to allow for less parking

20 spots required by the office structure itself, and to

21 allow for a larger loading area on the side of the

22 building. I mean, it's minor, but it's a major

23 concern to me. I do not think the employees should

24 have to walk around a delivery truck to get into a




1 building.

2 My second concern is I've heard a lot

3 of support for the waiver for the berm. My concern

4 is we have an ordinance and the ordinance states you

5 have to have a berm. Typically, when we send

6 something to the ZBA, it is because there's hardship.

7 There is absolutely no hardship in this particular

8 development. If we, as a Commission, feel strongly

9 that there are certain areas in the city that do not

10 require berms, then I think we have to handle it a

11 different way, and that's to send it to

12 Implementation, and then have the ordinance changed.

13 I would have a hard time supporting

14 not putting in a berm, when I'm trying to enforce the

15 ordinances equally to everyone who comes in front of

16 us. So it's difficult because it is an esthetic

17 thing, but it is a requirement in our ordinance that

18 you have a two and a half foot berm along the right

19 of way.

20 I heard this evening that Lauren

21 McGuire was very big on the berms and that she found

22 those to be especially esthetic, so I would have to

23 support a berm. Of course, you know, there's always

24 the option of going to the ZBA. The other option is




1 we could permit a wall instead of a berm, and I would

2 not be in support of that.

3 The other question that I have, and

4 I'm still not clear, and I apologize if the staff has

5 gone over this over and over again, is with regard to

6 the interior parking lot landscaping, that it

7 requires a variance. And I believe I had a

8 discussion that said that -- or someone had said that

9 because they're proposing the additional berm along

10 the south property line, which is technically not

11 required, does that count towards the interior

12 landscaping?

13 And my other question is, when we

14 talked about, if I heard this correctly, the

15 developer is building to the future right-of-way.

16 And if he didn't develop to the future right-of-way,

17 there would be green space between the road and the

18 parking lot. And my question to the staff is, does

19 that green belt along the right-of-way area, count as

20 interior parking landscaping?

21 MR. EVANCOE: And I'll address that.

22 Thank you for the question.

23 It's a difficult one to say. The

24 practice -- any ordinance, zoning ordinance




1 provision, has to be interpreted. So the way that

2 the Planning Department has interpreted this portion,

3 has been to not include the area around a parking lot

4 as counting toward the area requirement for the

5 interior landscape islands. But on the other hand,

6 we have interpreted that landscape plantings that are

7 adjacent, do count towards meeting the interior

8 landscape count.

9 And if you look at this site, for

10 example it requires approximately, I believe, 56

11 trees for interior parking lot landscaping --

12 Mr. Ludwig is acknowledging that that is correct.

13 There's no way you could provide 56 trees within the

14 interior of a parking lot of this size. So you end

15 up, you provide your islands, and you landscape those

16 islands, and the remaining trees can be placed around

17 the perimeter and counted. So if you look at

18 Mr. Ludwig's landscape plan, you'll see a number of

19 trees around the perimeter that have a P, and that's

20 because he counted those as parking. And

21 Mr. McGinnis has agreed that that's acceptable, and

22 that's consistent.

23 In terms of along the Meadowbrook

24 frontage, if they had designed their setback based on




1 the current right-of-way as opposed to future, yes,

2 they would have ended up with more area of buffer

3 instead of just 20 feet. But we still would not have

4 counted that area towards the interior landscape

5 requirement, but that wasn't the only way to solve

6 that. They also could have taken the extra area and

7 actually provided that as long islands running north

8 and south. They could have provided two more

9 eight-foot islands that would have run north/south

10 somewhere within that parking lot. It still

11 maintained the 20 feet on the east side, along

12 Meadowbrook. So we were never looking at having a

13 bigger buffer on the right, or on the east, counting

14 towards interior requirements.

15 I hope that's clear. I'll further

16 explain if need be.

17 MEMBER KOCAN: If you're saying that

18 you think that they could have put eight-foot long

19 north/south landscaping, where would the parking go?

20 MR. EVANCOE: It would have gone on

21 each side of those long islands.

22 MEMBER KOCAN: You're saying they

23 would have had 16 extra feet, but they set back that

24 extra 16 feet because of future right-of-way.




1 MR. EVANCOE: That's right. And that

2 decision was arrived at in consultation with both our

3 Engineering Department as well as Mr. Arroyo, and we

4 determined that you really do have to account for the

5 possibility of a road widening in the future, and

6 that's why we wanted them to set back from the future

7 instead of the current.

8 MEMBER KOCAN: Do we know how far in

9 the future it might be before Meadowbrook would be

10 widened?

11 MR. EVANCOE: I talked with Mr. Coburn

12 about that, and he indicated that there is no funding

13 for any project there, and no current plan to widen

14 that.

15 MR. COBURN: If I can jump in. I've

16 heard from the City Engineer that it is in the fiscal

17 year 2003 plan to do some work on Meadowbrook.

18 However, at this point, plans have not been

19 developed, and the width has not yet been

20 determined. So that's all still to come in the

21 future.

22 MEMBER KOCAN: And so Twelve Mile is

23 expected to be -- I don't think there's going to be

24 any more impact to this developer from Twelve Mile




1 being widened.

2 MR. COBURN: That's correct.

3 MEMBER KOCAN: There's not going to

4 be.

5 MR. COBURN: No more impact.

6 MEMBER KOCAN: So because it's on the

7 books for the year 2003, are we saying that it's in

8 our judgment that he should do it this way, or should

9 we as the Planning Commission look at this as being a

10 requirement that you need to take into consideration

11 that there's a future right-of-way so we can't give

12 you credit for something that you're required to do

13 anyway -- I don't know if I'm making sense or not.

14 Mr. Fisher, please.

15 MR. FISHER: I think we have to make

16 a suggestion, and I don't believe we're authorized to

17 require a setback for a future right-of-way.

18 MEMBER KOCAN: That was my question.

19 MR. FISHER: Yes.

20 MEMBER KOCAN: Okay. I'll listen to

21 hear what my other Commission members have to say.

22 Thank you.

23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Avdoulos.

24 It's about time.




1 MEMBER AVDOULOS. First of all, I'd

2 like to echo Commissioner Kocan's concerns with

3 regards to the loading area. I, personally, have no

4 problem with an office building and having UPS and

5 Staples and Fed Ex and the mail truck come by. The

6 concern I do have is if and when it sits there, as

7 cars come in through Meadowbrook, they'll have to be

8 steered, you know, through some of the islands. They

9 won't be able to cut across, and that may, you know,

10 cause a problem. But, you know, hoping that it

11 maintains just an office capacity, I don't know --

12 and I really can't predict if it's going to be a

13 problem or not, but I do have that concern, and I

14 think it also echos Commissioner Sprague's concern

15 with, you know, what type of use that building is

16 going to have.

17 The 19.7 feet versus the 20 feet,

18 that's not as big an issue. The one thing that I was

19 going to ask, and I know in the past Ron Arroyo has

20 worked with applicants where there was an overhang

21 that was allowed, so you could pull back the curb

22 because I think the curb gets reduced to four inches

23 rather than six inches high. But that will gain an

24 extra two feet of landscape, if you can have 17 feet




1 and two feet overhang. If that can be done around

2 the whole perimeter, then two feet times the length

3 of that, you can gain back 1500 square feet, if you

4 want to approach it that way, since we're kind of

5 tight on the spacing.

6 The safety path to the west of the

7 site, I was never in favor of building something that

8 dead ends. I'd rather see something, as we

9 indicated, either in escrow or some other decision by

10 the City once there's a Master Plan developed,

11 because to me it's just a waste of money, and if it's

12 one of these wooden decks that I keep seeing all over

13 the place, they'll rot before they even get used.

14 That's a City Council waiver, but I like the way that

15 Commissioner Shroyer phrased it.

16 The berm along the front, I think the

17 intent of the ordinance was to enhance the

18 right-of-ways along major thoroughfares and at the

19 same time create a visual block for seeing asphalt in

20 parking. But I think the way this building was sited

21 up towards the corner, I'm very pleased to see it

22 that way, and that's something that I would do. I'm

23 not a big fan of spending a lot of time and energy,

24 money, on materials and design, and then pushing a




1 building all the way to the back of property and

2 loading it up with cars in the front, and really not

3 making a statement. I think this is a good location

4 for the City. It's a nice spot. I think it's going

5 to enhance that corner. And so I was also debating,

6 and I knew Commissioner Kocan was going to be adamant

7 about the berm, but in a way it sort of breaks up the

8 monotony of this homogeneous berm for many, many,

9 miles and you bring in buildings that have character,

10 I think it's a benefit and an asset for the City.

11 The other concern I had was with the

12 parking. And I know we have a building that has

13 X-amount of square feet, and we do the calculations

14 and we come up with however many parking spaces are

15 required. 210. And we do show 210, but it would be

16 nice if there was a way to add a strip of landscape

17 islands right in the middle, just to break it up and

18 even soften up the parking area even more, and that

19 would entail losing eight spaces, and I don't know if

20 the math can be done to reconfigure the building. At

21 least, see if they can get pushed back a couple of

22 feet in order to accommodate that, and maybe even

23 take a look, if a loading zone could be taken away

24 from the front of the building and just pushed off to





1 the side and not -- it would be dedicated as a

2 loading zone, but they would still have to go to the

3 front of the building, or to the main entrance of the

4 building to access it.

5 But all in all, I think the project

6 that is presented is a very good project, and I give

7 it my support.

8 Thank you.

9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have any

10 other comments?

11 Mr. Papp.

12 MEMBER PAPP: Thank you, Madam Chair.

13 I was just looking at the loading zone

14 and there is 12 feet of space on the west side of the

15 building, that they could just put a little drive

16 there, something to park the vehicles.

17 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Yeah, and if -- I

18 know there's also a requirement for a sidewalk and

19 stuff that goes around the building. But maybe

20 that's something that we could start looking at with

21 the City, to see if something could be accommodated.

22 MEMBER PAPP: I have one other

23 question about the design up front. Is there a City


24 ordinance regarding that design up front or sculpture




1 that's up front, as far as height?

2 MR. EVANCOE: I don't believe that

3 that sculpture is a part of the Site Plan, I think

4 that's just for rendering purposes on the elevation.

5 Is that correct, I mean we can ask the

6 Applicant.

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Friedlaender,

8 if you could step to the podium and answer that

9 question for us, we'd really appreciate it.

10 MEMBER PAPP: The sculpture on the

11 front, is that just on the drawing or is-

12 MR. FRIEDLAENDER: The sculpture that

13 we're showing right now is a concept. We intend to

14 have some sort of a sculpture or decorative piece

15 there, but not necessarily the one that you see. We

16 took the one that you see out of an architectural

17 magazine. It seemed to fit. We don't know if it

18 will be available, but it's an illustration.

19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very

20 much.

21 MEMBER PAPP: Just be aware that

22 there's a sign ordinance. Be aware if it fits into

23 the ordinance or not, whatever you put out front.

24 But the building looks very nice. Very nice design.





1 Thank you.

2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: With that --

3 Commissioner Kocan -- I mean, Commissioner Markham.

4 MEMBER MARKHAM: I'm going to weigh

5 in, although I don't have a lot of difference from my

6 fellow commissioners.

7 I too am concerned about the loading,

8 especially things like furniture. Yes, you're going

9 to have, you know, Fed Ex trucks bringing envelopes

10 and that sort of thing, but when you fill this office

11 building, you're going to have furniture, and I agree

12 that I'd like to see some adjustment, either to the

13 west entrance or something else, so that bigger

14 deliveries can be handled not at the front door.

15 And as far as the Twelve Mile roadside

16 walk/bike path goes, philosophically for the City, I

17 think it's important that every time we have a

18 development we put these bike paths/sidewalks in.

19 I'm married to a runner, and every time he goes out

20 to run, I hear all about the way he has to run on a

21 path, run out in the street, run on the gravel. I'd

22 like to see bike paths throughout the City, and I do

23 believe that it's on the shoulders of the developers

24 to help us with that. And therefore, I would -- I'm




1 glad you asked, Mr. Shroyer, what could we do to make

2 sure that we will have a path over there at some

3 point. I like the idea of waiting, because we may

4 get a nice creative design in the future that if we

5 put a boardwalk there now, and the next person comes

6 along and develops the property for six, eight years,

7 from now and want to do something completely

8 different, we're stuck with this funny looking

9 boardwalk out in the middle. So I like the idea of

10 waiting to incorporate it with whatever gets done

11 around the wetlands.

12 I, too, think the building's a little

13 big for the site. I think a lot of the problems we

14 have and a lot of waivers we're asking for, could be

15 resolved if this building had a smaller footprint.

16 That being said, I like the design, I like it up

17 close to Twelve Mile. I'm not in favor of a berm up

18 there for exactly the reason Mr. Avdoulos stated. I

19 think this is esthetically very pleasing to the

20 roadway. And that's all I have.


22 We'll take a minute break here while

23 the court reporter changes her paper.

24 (A brief recess was taken.)




1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We're back on the

2 record.

3 Thank you very much. I'd like to add

4 my two cents worth here, if I could.

5 I agree with my fellow Commissioners.

6 I really like the design of this building. I am

7 not -- I'm willing to support a waiver for the berm.

8 I think the idea of having the building on

9 Twelve Mile is very attractive. I think the big

10 concern that I see here, and maybe some of the

11 Commissioners might want to even think about this,

12 and I'm saying this to the Applicant with all due

13 respect. I love your concept, the building looks

14 great, I agree with no berming, you know, we can make

15 a covenant regarding the future bike path on your

16 west side.

17 However, the problem as I see it, your

18 building is a little too big for the amount of

19 property you have. The loading zone is an issue with

20 us because we have the ordinance requirement, and

21 it's your obligation to meet that requirement.

22 Also, from a practical point of view,

23 I just happened to be in an office building where

24 they had that very same thing. I spent most of my




1 day in Auburn Hills, and they had the loading zone as

2 part of the entranceway, and there was a truck there

3 for hours on end in idle. So as I was taking the

4 deposition, I heard this truck for hours on end, and

5 it was a larger truck, like a stake truck, and then

6 when you left the building, you were continually

7 maneuvering around the truck. So I have a concern

8 because it just happened to me.

9 Also by the loading area, you also

10 have your handicap area, handicap parking. And, yes,

11 I see that you have the sidewalk there, and yes, they

12 can walk on the sidewalk. But I really would like to

13 ask the Applicant, it's not my place to make any kind

14 of motion whatsoever, but would you be amenable to

15 maybe making a few of these changes because I think

16 you hear the Commission. We like your idea, we like

17 your building, we're willing to work with you for

18 some of the changes regarding the berming, and maybe

19 a little adjustment on your part, and we could come

20 out with a win-win situation all the way around.

21 What do you think, Mr. Friedlaender?

22 MR. FRIEDLAENDER: What I'm hearing

23 is -- I'm pleased with the general feedback about the

24 project. The loading area, we have moved it a couple




1 of times. We're willing to look at it, study it, and

2 see if we can come up with something more

3 acceptable. We could put it over on the west side of

4 the building and delete some of the landscaped area

5 over there, you know.

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: (Interposing) I

7 don't think that's what you're hearing from the

8 Commission. And I don't mean to interject or be rude

9 to you, that's not what the Commission was saying.

10 You know, you could -- what they're saying to you, I

11 think basically is if you reduce the size of your

12 building, you wouldn't require all that parking

13 space. You could make the changes and they'd be

14 willing to waive the berm in the front. And that's

15 what I was hearing them say,

16 I mean, either the Commission can make

17 a motion and vote or they can table it. And tabling,

18 would be where you could go back to our Planning

19 Department, work some things out, to come and meet

20 more of the requirements of the ordinance and, you

21 know, come back for the first available date with the

22 Commission. So I'm just kind of giving you an idea,

23 a synopsis of what everyone is saying here.

24 Basically everyone likes your design and agrees with




1 a lot of things.

2 MR. FRIEDLAENDER: So you're asking me

3 if I think you should go ahead and vote in light of

4 these concerns or table it and see if we can make

5 some adjustments?


7 MR. FRIEDLAENDER: If you take a vote

8 and it's negative, are we precluded from addressing

9 this -- I'm a little confused on the procedure.

10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Well, obviously,

11 some of the waivers that we're requiring are beyond

12 the Planning Commission, such as those that are

13 required by the Zoning Board of Appeals, where you

14 are going to show that you have some sort of a

15 hardship. Obviously, there are some waivers that

16 only the City Council can give you. But our

17 recommendation can be one to either approve or to

18 deny. So whatever our motion would be, either to

19 approve with certain conditions, or to deny, it would

20 go to all those areas, so that the City Council would

21 receive the minutes, you know, with our denial, or

22 the ZBA, and our reasons stated in there. I mean, if

23 it's denied, it's done with us.

24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Fisher, if we




1 deny it, it's denied all total; right?

2 MR. FISHER: As I understand it, this

3 is recommendation to Council?


5 motion to either deny-

6 MR. FISHER: If you deny, you deny,

7 that's right.

8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I'm sorry, I was

9 thinking recommendation.

10 If we deny your Site Plan, then you

11 have to start from the very beginning. If we table

12 your Site Plan, the major concerns that the

13 Commission had, you can work with Ms. McBeth, our

14 planner; our engineer, Mr. Coburn, and make the

15 adjustments and then come back for approval.

16 I apologize. I thought this was like

17 a-

18 MR. FRIEDLAENDER: Well, when you say

19 if there's a vote and it's a denial, we start over.

20 I'm-

21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: (Interposing) The

22 process starts over. With your money, with the time,

23 with the site plans. It sounds like you're starting

24 afresh with a new set of site plans.




1 MR. FRIEDLAENDER: Why don't we go

2 ahead and table it then.

3 MR. EVANCOE: If I may, Madam Chair.


5 MR. EVANCOE: I'm not trying in any

6 way to steer the Commission in a particular

7 direction, but one other option, of course, that you

8 would have would be to approve it as a Preliminary

9 Site Plan with various conditions, and then have the

10 staff work with the Applicant towards that Final Site

11 Plan, to work out those details.

12 But again, I'm not trying to tell you

13 what you should do, but that is a third option.

14 MEMBER RUYLE: You also have an option

15 for bringing it back.

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You're not on the

17 -- Mr. Ruyle, nobody heard you. You didn't have your

18 mike on.

19 MEMBER RUYLE: Don't we also have the

20 option of bringing it back for Final Site Approval?


22 Commissioner Markham.

23 MEMBER MARKHAM: I just want to be

24 clear on this. If we approve it with conditions, we




1 have the authority to do that, and it has to be

2 submitted with those conditions being met; is that

3 correct?

4 MR. EVANCOE: Submitted to the staff?


6 MR. EVANCOE: That's right. And if

7 they are not to meet that, then we would probably

8 kick it right back to you, and say here's the Final

9 Site Plan, but it's not what you had ordered.

10 MEMBER MARKHAM: My concern, I think,

11 is alleviated because -- all I want to make sure of

12 is that when we make these recommendations that all

13 the hard work that goes into this, is not negated

14 because someone decides it's not important or doesn't

15 agree with the Commission. If we vote that way, that

16 becomes the required condition in this case, because

17 it's not a special land use -- or no, that doesn't

18 have anything to do with this.

19 MR. EVANCOE: Right. You would be

20 making a conditional approval, and those conditions

21 would stick. And if they can't be met, they would

22 have to come back to the Commission.

23 MEMBER MARKHAM: Okay. I understand.

24 Thank you.




1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Commissioner

2 Sprague.

3 MEMBER SPRAGUE: With this project, I

4 can see it with conditions, but it doesn't seem to me

5 that a condition can be reducing the size of the

6 building. Is that a fair statement?

7 MR. EVANCOE: And I might defer to

8 Mr. Fisher, but I would just say this, that it's

9 probably better to state what your end desired result

10 is, as opposed to the exact method to get there. So

11 if your desire is more internal landscaping or a

12 different location for the loading area, that's what

13 I would say instead of reduce the building, because

14 there might be some other way to achieve that result.

15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Could I make a

16 comment? I don't think it's our job as commissioners

17 to design the building or redesign the building at

18 the table. I think as the developer and our

19 planners, I think that's why tabling would seem to me

20 the proper way to go.

21 Mr. Sprague.

22 MEMBER SPRAGUE: If we table it, do

23 we provide direction as to what we would like to see


24 approved, as opposed to approving with conditions




1 which are specific about what we would like to see?


3 MEMBER SPRAGUE: So either way, we can

4 convey the issues we'd like to see addressed.


6 Mr. Ruyle.

7 MEMBER RUYLE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

8 Just for the record, if we make a

9 motion to table, I will vote against it. If we make

10 a motion to deny, I will vote against it.


12 Mr. Ruyle.

13 Commissioner Kocan.

14 MEMBER KOCAN: Okay, I'll be the

15 bearer of bad news.

16 I make a motion to table SP 01-04A,

17 Meadowbrook Office Building, to allow the

18 developer to work with the City Planning

19 Department to look at reducing the building

20 size, which will, in turn, reduce the number of

21 required parking, allow additional space for the

22 loading zone, look at the parking stall depths,

23 which could eliminate a need for a waiver for

24 the parking setback. There may be additional




1 room for the required interior parking lot

2 landscaping. Coming forward to the most

3 available Planning Commission meeting.

4 The berm is going to be a

5 recommendation to the ZBA. So it will be in

6 their hands. We can say we approve no berm, but

7 I've been on the ZBA, and there's a very good

8 chance that they will enforce the ordinance.

9 That's a chance that you take. We do make a

10 recommendation to the ZBA. That's your decision

11 with the City. We cannot guarantee whether or

12 not you'll get that waiver for that variance.

13 That's my motion.

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Is

15 there a second to that motion?


17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Seconded by

18 Commissioner Markham.

19 Is there any further discussion?

20 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Madam Chair?

21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes. Mr. Avdoulos.

22 MEMBER AVDOULOS: I just wanted to

23 make sure that the Applicant was informed or sure

24 with what Member Kocan had indicated, the areas that




1 we were looking at. And the things that we have to

2 take responsibility for are Planning Commission

3 waivers, not ZBA waivers. So ZBA, as was indicated,

4 looks at us for direction, and could do with it

5 whatever they want to do.

6 The waiver, I think the most critical

7 waiver is the one for the screening of the loading

8 area from adjacent properties, but it's not so much

9 the screening as it is right now the location, and

10 the location has concern with safety and welfare of

11 people entering the building, and also with handicap

12 access.

13 And the other issue is there are

14 requirements for interior landscaping, so that's

15 where the size of the building comes in. Although we

16 can't tell you how and what to design in order to

17 meet the requirements, there has to be a little bit

18 of mathematics to go along with that.

19 As you get that going and have your

20 discussions with the City, then I think we'll have,

21 you know, a good project. But as indicated, we want

22 to work with you, and we don't want to go through the

23 effort of denying and then having to resubmit. I

24 think, you know, what we've got is a fantastic step




1 forward and it's by no means a negative reaction to

2 the project. It's just that we want to make sure

3 that we do what the zoning ordinance asks us to do.

4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: All right. Any

5 further discussion?

6 Mr. Sprague.

7 MEMBER SPRAGUE: I just have a

8 question; it's probably for the attorney.

9 I think that tabling this is the right

10 thing to do in conveying what we want. I'm a little

11 troubled with saying you need to reduce the

12 building. That's one solution to it, but it sounds

13 to me like we're prescribing that solution. And I'm

14 wondering, are we in the business of prescribing

15 solutions, or should it more be a motion to say we

16 want to table it but it's to address the loading zone

17 issue, or specific issues, leaving how they're

18 addressed to the Applicant.


20 Mr. Fisher.

21 MR. FISHER: Thank you.

22 It would be my understanding that the

23 motion would essentially direct that these matters be

24 considered.





2 MR. FISHER: And then be brought back.

3 MEMBER KOCAN: Did I say consider?


5 MEMBER RUYLE: You said look at. You

6 said look at this and look at that, and I thought

7 that was good wording.


9 MEMBER KOCAN: I meant to say consider

10 reducing.

11 MEMBER SPRAGUE: Maybe I just need to

12 hear it again. I understood the basic premise to be

13 reduce the size of the building so that we can

14 achieve -- you know, reducing the number of parking

15 spaces, reducing the depth, you know, looking at the

16 loading zone. It sounded to me like we're telling

17 him to reduce the size of the building to accomplish

18 these things, which is, you know, where I'm having an

19 issue. I don't know want to prescribe how he has to

20 do it. I agree with all of these things as goals, I

21 just don't want to prescribe the solution.

22 MR. FISHER: It's all a

23 consideration.

24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: It is, and it's




1 really late and I'm not going to ask the court

2 reporter to read back at ten-thirty at night. But

3 it's the intent, to look at these things. It's not

4 prescribing, it's not telling him what to do. We

5 never do that when we table.

6 However, the only thing that I think

7 that was addressed in the motion that was important

8 is our loading zone area, we have a specific

9 ordinance. That's got to be looked at, and that's

10 what she said, look at these things.

11 If there's no further comment, can we

12 call the roll, please, Mr. Schmitt?

13 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

14 Chairperson Nagy.


16 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Papp.


18 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Paul.


20 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Ruyle.


22 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Shroyer.


24 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Sprague.





2 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Avdoulos.


4 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Kocan.


6 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Markham.


8 MR. SCHMITT: Motion passes 7 to 2.

9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very

10 much. And we will make sure that when you meet with

11 the Planning Department, you will be brought back for

12 the first available meeting.

13 Did you have a question, sir?

14 MR. LUDWIG: When will the minutes be

15 available? Either could they restate the motion, or

16 when would the minutes be available?

17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Well, the minutes

18 won't be available for 30 days. You want the court

19 reporter to read back your motion?

20 MR. LUDWIG: Your motion, yes.

21 MR. SCHMITT: I can restate the

22 motion. I have it written down.

23 The motion was to table the project to

24 allow the developer and the City to look at,




1 consider, reducing the building size, moving the

2 loading zone, looking at the depth of the parking

3 stalls, the amount of parking in order to get more

4 interior landscaping.

5 MR. LUDWIG: Thank you.

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And you know what,

7 I didn't catch your name for the court reporter.

8 MR. LUDWIG: Jim Ludwig. Landscape

9 architect.


11 L-u-d-w-i-g; correct?

12 MR. LUDWIG: Yes.


14 Mr. Ludwig.

15 Do you have any further questions?


17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And they have

18 everything written down, and they'll work with you,

19 and you'll come back.

20 MR. FRIEDLAENDER: I'm satisfied.

21 I'm willing to work with you. Thank you.

22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. We

23 really appreciate it.

24 It's 10:30, we're going to take a five




1 minute break.

2 (A brief recess was taken.)


4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Calling back the

5 meeting to order.

6 The next item on the Agenda is

7 Waltonwood Phase II, Site Plan Number 02-38.

8 Consideration of the request of Singh

9 Development Company for a recommendation to City

10 Council for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan with

11 a PD-1, Planned Development Option.

12 The subject property is located in

13 Section 14 on the south side of Twelve Mile Road,

14 between Novi and Meadowbrook Roads, in the RM-1, Low

15 Density Multiple Family District. The developer is

16 proposing a design change to the Phase II assisted

17 living portion of the building, an additional 11,000

18 square foot expansion -- excuse me. It says 11,000

19 square foot expansion on the Agenda I'm reading

20 from.


22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: -11,000 square foot

23 expansion of the existing facility. The subject

24 property is 13.14 acres.




1 And I believe there needs to be a

2 motion made before we proceed.

3 Member Kocan.

4 MEMBER KOCAN: Madam Chair, I'd like

5 to make a motion to remove the item from the table.

6 It was tabled at the last meeting.


8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. Could we

9 have a roll call?

10 MS. MCBETH: Commissioner Papp.


12 MS. MCBETH: Commissioner Paul.


14 MS. MCBETH: Commissioner Ruyle.


16 MS. MCBETH: Commissioner Shroyer.


18 MS. MCBETH: Commissioner Sprague.


20 MS. MCBETH: Commissioner Avdoulos.


22 MS. MCBETH: Commissioner Kocan.


24 MS. MCBETH: Commissioner Markham.





2 MS. MCBETH: And Chairperson Nagy.


4 MS. MCBETH: Motion passes 9 to 0.


6 MEMBER RUYLE: Clarification on the

7 size.

8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And there is a

9 clarification that we need to have before you go into

10 the description. I think the review letter says

11 16,000 square feet, and this says 11,000 square feet.

12 Which is it?

13 MR. SCHMITT: After discussing it with

14 the Applicant, it's 16,000 square feet.

15 MEMBER PAPP: Has that changed since

16 December 18 then?

17 MR. SCHMITT: No, ma'am -- no, sir.

18 It is still 16,000 square feet. It was a typo

19 previously.

20 MEMBER PAPP: Because on the

21 December 18 sheet it was 11,000 feet.

22 MR. SCHMITT: That was a typographical

23 error. It should have been changed in both places.

24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Well, that changes




1 a lot of things when we came to review everything.

2 MR. SCHMITT: I'm sorry to hear that.

3 MEMBER PAPP: Thank you, ma'am.


5 MR. SCHMITT: As you can see on the

6 zoning map located on the overhead, the property is

7 currently zoned RM-1. The surrounding properties to

8 the north, the west, are zoned RC, and directly to

9 the east is OST zoned property. To the south is the

10 lake at Twelve Oaks Mall.

11 The Land Use Map indicates, as you

12 can see, the PD-1 option is present on this property

13 and it is Master Planned for Multiple Family. The

14 surrounding property is in accordance with their

15 zoning designation, having an original commercial or

16 office designation.

17 It's a general overview of the area.

18 You can see Twelve Oaks Mall to the far west of the

19 picture, Meadowbrook Road to the far east, and

20 Twelve Mile Road bisecting the picture in half.

21 I'll be brief in my comments, as

22 you've recently seen this project before. Previously

23 there were four variances required for approval: a

24 variance for the rear yard setback for the building




1 from the property line; a variance for the excessive

2 amount of paved area for the side yard; a variance

3 for the parking lot setback in the side yard; and ZBA

4 for Noise Analysis.

5 After working with the Applicant --

6 as you can see, this is the original Site Plan.

7 After working with the Applicant, parking spaces were

8 removed from this area, and per the Planning

9 Commission's request, it was decided the parking

10 spaces could be added in this northern area by

11 realigning the parking lot. What we arrived at is

12 this, which is virtually the same. As you can see,

13 Phase I, the design change for Phase II, aligning it

14 north and south. A large amount of open space to the

15 east, the lake to the south.

16 And zooming in on the parking lot in

17 question, although this is a poor photocopy, you can

18 see that the setback is now 50 feet, eliminating the

19 need for that variance. The Applicant is still

20 within the requirements for the number of parking

21 spaces on the site. And all other comments and

22 variances still apply. So for the project, there are

23 now three variances that are required: for the rear

24 yard setback for the building, which is located here;




1 for the excessive amount of paved area in this side

2 yard; and for the Noise Analysis.

3 In addition, the other change that was

4 made by the Applicant, further requested by the Planning

5 Commission, the sidewalk on the northern portion of

6 the building was pulled away from the road to provide

7 five feet of distance between the curb and the

8 sidewalk, per the City standard, to provide for a

9 safer pedestrian access throughout the site.

10 MEMBER KOCAN: Could you repeat that,

11 please. I missed that.

12 MR. SCHMITT: Yes, ma'am.

13 The sidewalk in this location

14 previously was extremely close to the road, which is

15 fairly hard to see, unfortunately. This copy is very


16 poor. The Applicant has pulled that sidewalk away

17 from the road providing a five-foot green belt

18 between the sidewalk and the road, per the City

19 standards.

20 So in conclusion this is a

21 recommendation for City Council on the Preliminary

22 Site Plan and PD-1 option. The Applicant will still

23 need three ZBA variances, and I will let Mr. Pham

24 address further the changes that they made.




1 Thank you.


3 Mr. Schmitt.

4 Mr. Pham, if you would please approach

5 and give us any other presentation.

6 MR. PHAM: Khanh Pham. K-h-a-n-h, the

7 last name is Pham, P-h-a-m. I'm with Singh

8 Development.

9 Since our last meeting, we've taken a

10 lot of your comments and revised our Site Plan, and

11 we took a lot of the Planning staff's comments to

12 revise our Site Plan. We came up with a good

13 solution to avoid a setback for the parking, but we

14 still believe, and you if can indulge me, to let me

15 show you why we think the original parking layout is

16 better than the parking layout that meets the

17 ordinance.

18 If you look at the new layout, we'll

19 call that B. When we moved the parking, we increased

20 the sidewalk by seven feet and that allowed for two

21 additional feet overhang, and we reduced the stall on

22 this side to 17 feet, which is normally 19 feet, and

23 that moved the parking two feet over. We did the

24 exact same thing on this side, where we reduced the




1 stalls from 17 feet, then pulled the parking further

2 to the east two feet, allowing two feet overhang, so

3 that we can move the whole parking lot four feet to

4 the east. Then we removed two parking spaces to the

5 south, and per your recommendation, we added one more

6 to the north. So there was a loss of three, gain of

7 one, so there was a net loss of only two parking

8 spaces.

9 We are still in conformance of the

10 parking requirement of 164 spaces. But as you can

11 see, by putting this one additional parking space up

12 there, we believe that although it still meets the

13 ordinance, it is extremely short distance before you

14 make the turn from the drive.

15 We do acknowledge that our facility

16 does not have a lot of vehicles, but we do not

17 believe that the ordinance should override what we

18 think is a safe design.

19 Furthermore, because this is an

20 assisted living facility, both sides of the stalls

21 are almost 17 feet. We have to assume that when we

22 have vans or larger vehicles dropping them off,

23 friends dropping family members off, they would have

24 to make sure that they pull all the way in with a two




1 feet overhang on both sides, or their vans or large

2 cars would be sitting in the middle of the center

3 aisle.

4 Again, that's not something that we

5 can tell them, that they have to keep pulling over,

6 but that's a concern that we have that this may not

7 be the safest and the best design. So that's the

8 reason why we believe that this layout here, the

9 original one, although it requires a seven foot

10 parking setback, is a better parking layout. So

11 we're asking for your review or recommendations to

12 see which one you think is more appropriate.

13 Furthermore, at the last meeting, one

14 of the members mentioned that this project is a

15 little bit over built, and after we received the

16 minutes we realized we needed to address that. So we

17 went ahead and did some calculations to show you

18 that (brief discussion off the record) -- the site is


19 13.41 acres. The first aerial is the original layout

20 that got approved in 1998, and the new is the

21 Scheme A, the same building as Scheme B.

22 What we want to point out, if you look

23 down under previous area Number 3, right over there,

24 on Number C the acreage for the building only




1 increased slightly, which is only about one percent

2 increase over what we were approved before. And then

3 the question was, would that have a huge impact on

4 open space? We also calculated that as well, and

5 through our calculations, with our new design, we

6 only have a .8 percent difference in loss of open

7 space. So we didn't want to not regard that

8 question, did you over build. Again, this is

9 primarily to make the building safer, to allow for

10 better internal circulation of the residents.

11 And hoping for your review in this

12 matter, if you have any questions, we are here.


14 Mr. Pham.

15 I'd like to turn this over to the

16 Commission. Who would like to start?

17 Member Kocan.

18 MEMBER KOCAN: Okay, I'll start. In

19 my opinion, we're making a recommendation to Council,

20 but they will have the final decision. And I think

21 it's in our best interest to comply with as many

22 ordinances as possible before we send it to Council.

23 So the revised parking structure or parking layout in

24 the front -- let me ask the question first, Mr. Pham:




1 Why did you reduce the depth of the parking spaces;

2 was that a requirement?

3 MR. PHAM: No. In your ordinance

4 you're allowed to reduce the parking stalls by two

5 feet.

6 MEMBER KOCAN: Did you need to do

7 that, though, to comply with an ordinance?

8 MR. PHAM: That's correct.

9 MEMBER KOCAN: So you only removed

10 two parking spaces, because you were -- you didn't

11 have to remove additional parking spaces because you

12 moved in or reduced the depth of the parking.

13 MR. PHAM: On both sides. That's

14 correct.

15 MEMBER KOCAN: Otherwise, you would

16 have had to remove four parking spaces at the

17 southwest corner.

18 MR. PHAM: Right. And at the

19 maximum, we can relocate one to the north, but that

20 will still make us one parking space deficient of the

21 parking requirements. Therefore, we require a ZBA

22 variance for deficient parking.

23 MEMBER KOCAN: Okay. But the

24 proposal that you have that's been changed, meets the




1 ordinance requirement, it meets the setback

2 requirement, and I'm going to recommend that that's

3 the one we go with.

4 I do have a question with regard to

5 the sidewalk. You did change the curvature of the

6 sidewalk at the northwest corner of the building.

7 Did you move the sidewalk closer to the building?

8 MR. PHAM: That's correct. And now

9 we have five feet separation from Huron Circle to the

10 sidewalk -- four.

11 MEMBER KOCAN: How many feet between

12 the sidewalk and the building?

13 MR. PHAM: Probably anywhere from like

14 eight to ten feet, depending on the area.

15 MEMBER KOCAN: It doesn't look like

16 eight to ten, but it's got to be a minimum of four

17 feet; is that correct? So as long as we're

18 maintaining our four-foot distance-

19 MR. PHAM: We have that.

20 MEMBER KOCAN: That's a requirement.

21 With regard to the excessive amount of

22 paved area, and I know you stated that at the last

23 meeting and it became more apparent to me as I read

24 the minutes, that the reason -- it's not necessarily




1 the parking, just the parking areas, itself, that add

2 to that percentage ratio, but because this is a PD-1,

3 I believe, Mr. Schmitt, you stated, that you have to

4 include any ring roads in the calculation; is that

5 correct?

6 MR. SCHMITT: Yes, ma'am, that's

7 correct.

8 MEMBER KOCAN: Okay. And it's also my

9 understanding, that this ring road was the

10 requirement or recommendation from the original

11 development. It makes sense, it adds to the health,

12 safety, welfare of the building to have traffic go

13 around the building as opposed through the parking

14 lot. So I would be amenable to grant or recommend

15 the variance for the excessive amount of paved area.

16 With regard to the Noise Analysis, we

17 talked about that before; that will be a ZBA

18 variance. This is a residential property, it's

19 developed as residential, you're developing

20 additional residential. As of right now, there's no

21 other residential around this, so I would also be in

22 support of waiving the Noise Analysis. If it's too

23 noisy, you will lose all your residents.

24 With regard to the rear yard setback,




1 and I believe that that refers -- or where the

2 variance is, is in the northwest corner of the

3 building.

4 MR. PHAM: About right here.

5 MEMBER KOCAN: Okay. And the

6 variance is required because it has to be 75 feet

7 from the lot line.

8 MR. PHAM: That's correct.

9 MEMBER KOCAN: The lot line does not

10 go perpendicular to the building; correct?

11 MR. PHAM: That's correct.

12 MEMBER KOCAN: It comes down on an

13 angle. If we were to make a requirement, and I

14 understand that you also -- or Singh also owns the

15 property to the north of this property.

16 MR. PHAM: That's also correct.

17 MEMBER KOCAN: Would it be a

18 possibility that as part of our motion, we would

19 require that any future building to the north of this

20 building, must be a minimum of 150 feet away. And by

21 having it 150 feet away, it would be as if we redrew

22 the lot line to be 75 feet away from the corner of

23 the building, and then the next building has to be 75

24 feet away from the lot line of the next building.




1 And that's the intent of our ordinance, to have

2 separation between buildings. Is that a solution

3 that the City might be able to live with?

4 MR. EVANCOE: Yes, ma'am. I think

5 that would be a good solution.

6 MR. PHAM: And we would be agreeable

7 to that, to meet the intent of the ordinance.

8 MEMBER KOCAN: To meet the intent of

9 the ordinance. Okay. In that case, I would be

10 willing to make a motion:

11 In the matter of Waltonwood at Twelve

12 Oaks Phase II Site, Plan 02-38, motion to grant

13 approval of the Section 9 facade waiver, as the

14 two buildings will match.


15 And to send a positive recommendation

16 to City Council on the Preliminary Site Plan,

17 subject to a ZBA variance for rear yard setback,

18 61 feet provided, 75 feet required, with the

19 understanding that any future building to the

20 north will be a minimum of 150 feet away.

21 ZBA variance for excessive amount of

22 paved area, 35 percent provided, and 30 percent

23 allowed, because the ring road adds to the

24 percentage of the parking surface.




1 ZBA variance of the Noise Analysis, as

2 the development is already residential, to be

3 expanded as residential, and conditional upon

4 the conditions and items listed in the staff and

5 consultant review letters.

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is there a second

7 to that motion?



10 Mr. Ruyle.

11 Mr. Fisher.

12 MR. FISHER: Just one clarification,

13 and I think this is the intent, is that in achieving

14 the 150-foot building separation, that would be a

15 recommendation to the ZBA to grant a variance on this

16 property, but with the understanding that the 150

17 feet would be maintained.

18 MEMBER KOCAN: Correct. So the

19 variance would be on this property, and the next

20 development would be-

21 MR. FISHER: With that condition.

22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have any

23 further discussion?

24 Mr. Shroyer.




1 MEMBER SHROYER: Mr. Fisher, just a

2 point of clarification on this as well.

3 If Singh was to sell the property to

4 the north, how does that handle; is there a deed

5 restriction to require that?

6 MR. FISHER: Well, they would be

7 making the application for a variance, and if that

8 variance were granted then I would suggest that we

9 record it, yes -- or that it be required to be

10 recorded.

11 MEMBER SHROYER: It needs to be on

12 the record.

13 MR. FISHER: Absolutely. Without

14 question.

15 MR. SHROYER: Thank you.



18 Mr. Papp.

19 MEMBER PAPP: Thank you, Madam Chair.

20 I have one comment. In the future,

21 when you submit blueprints, I would appreciate it if

22 the revisions or changes are recorded on the

23 blueprints, so I know the history of the blueprint.

24 And also that the seal or a signature of the




1 architect or whoever -- some of them are sealed and


2 some of them are not. The last three that are on

3 here, have no dates on them or anything. As far as I

4 know, all these blueprints that you have here, are

5 submitted July of 2002, and there's been changes

6 since July of 2002.

7 MR. PHAM: Actually, no.

8 MEMBER PAPP: No? The building was

9 not-

10 MR. PHAM: That's what we have, the

11 one additional page with changes, per Planning

12 Commission changes. Everything else has not changed

13 since July.

14 MEMBER PAPP: Plan A and Plan B?

15 MR. PHAM: Yes.

16 MEMBER PAPP: Okay, there is one that

17 has a date of July 8, 2002, which probably should

18 have been 2003.

19 MR. PHAM: No. 2002. We submitted

20 these drawings and we have not made any changes. We

21 made one change for the parking with-


23 MEMBER PAPP: '03. Okay.

24 MEMBER MARKHAM: Revision for Plan B




1 says 1-8-02 and it should say '03.

2 MEMBER PAPP: Okay, but it should, I

3 think, also be stamped or sealed.

4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes. It should be

5 stamped and sealed, and let's not talk all at one

6 time.

7 MEMBER PAPP: Just a suggestion,

8 that's all.

9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Papp has the

10 floor.

11 MEMBER PAPP: Thank you. I'm done,

12 Madam Chair.

13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Anyone

14 else?

15 Yes, Mrs. Paul.

16 MEMBER PAUL: One comment on the

17 parking. When you go into the entry of this

18 facility, I believe it's on the northwest corner, can

19 we make this a one-way drive, like a right turn only

20 when you enter, and you come around and enter this

21 parking lot through the south border?

22 MR. PHAM: That's already a

23 recommendation from your Traffic Consultant, and we

24 agree with that condition.




1 MEMBER PAUL: It's just not on the

2 plans, so I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you.

3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Commissioner

4 Markham?

5 MEMBER MARKHAM: How many of your

6 total parking spaces are planned for the residents,

7 themselves?

8 MR. PHAM: It depends on which side

9 you're talking about. For the congregate side,

10 Phase I, if you notice -- the overhead.

11 MEMBER MARKHAM: Uh-huh. Okay.

12 MR. PHAM: These parking spaces here,

13 are reserved with carports for the congregate side of

14 Phase I, and then these are for visitors. And again,

15 these are also for visitors. Because this is an

16 assisted living, not a lot of the residents -- barely

17 any, drive at all or own vehicles. So primarily,

18 it's all over here.

19 MEMBER MARKHAM: Okay. That's all I

20 -- oh, my one other comment is I do appreciate that

21 you did make the attempt to bring the development

22 more into compliance with the ordinances of the

23 City. We appreciate that.

24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have any




1 further comments?

2 Seeing no one, I would like

3 Mr. Schmitt to call the roll, please.

4 MS. MCBETH: Thank you, Madam Chair.

5 I'll call the roll.

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I'm sorry. Thank

7 you, Ms. McBeth.

8 MS. MCBETH: Commissioner Paul.


10 MS. MCBETH: Commissioner Ruyle.


12 MS. MCBETH: Commissioner Shroyer.


14 MS. MCBETH: Commissioner Sprague.



16 MS. MCBETH: Commissioner Avdoulos.


18 MS. MCBETH: Commissioner Kocan.


20 MS. MCBETH: Commissioner Markham.


22 MS. MCBETH: Chairperson Nagy.


24 MS. MCBETH: And Commissioner Papp.





2 MS. MCBETH: Motion passes 9 to 0.


4 Ms. McBeth.

5 MR. PHAM: Thank you. Goodnight.


7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Our next item is

8 to approve the minutes of November 6, 2002.

9 Instead of going through them page by

10 page, would you like us just to submit it to the

11 appropriate person, like whoever does the minutes?

12 Instead of calling it and putting it

13 on the record, would you like us to submit the

14 corrections?

15 MR. EVANCOE: I think that works

16 fine. We can -- I think that will save the


17 Commission some time. Either way, we need to make

18 those corrections.

19 MEMBER KOCAN: I just looked through

20 all of the corrections and many of them are minor.

21 I'm not changing anyone's names or attributing

22 anything to anyone else. Unless it's something that

23 requires a name change and requires approval, I don't

24 have any that are other than spelling and maybe




1 clarifying what I say, because I guess I don't talk

2 very clearly. But -- Mr. Ruyle. I'm sorry.

3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: No. You had the

4 floor.

5 MEMBER KOCAN: I'm amenable to handing

6 mine in unless anybody else has any other changes.

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Ruyle, did you

8 want to say something?

9 MEMBER RUYLE: Yes. Thank you, Madam

10 Chair. Just name changes, that's the only thing I

11 want to bring up. Page 13, one, two, three, four --

12 fifth paragraph starts out with Roy Jones. His name

13 is Ron, not Roy.

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. I think we

15 can just submit those. And if there is a motion --

16 do we need a motion for approval?

17 MEMBER KOCAN: Trusting Member Kocan

18 caught most of them.

19 MEMBER RUYLE: Trusting that Member

20 Kocan caught most of them.

21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is there a second

22 to that motion?

23 MEMBER PAUL: Second.

24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We'll just take a




1 voice vote. All in favor say aye.



4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Now, with regard to

5 the approval of the November 20, 2002 Planning

6 Commission Meeting minutes, I am requesting that

7 Member Kocan and myself please give the transcript to

8 the department, and I am requesting that the changes

9 be made. That court reporter no longer is with that

10 firm. I assume she can still make those corrections.

11 There's just way too many corrections

12 and we will submit all the corrections to you, and

13 that court reporter can make all the changes and

14 submit a corrected transcript.

15 Member Kocan.

16 MEMBER KOCAN: Is that what would

17 happen then, it will come back to us for reapproval?

18 Because I have 30 minor and 27 major changes.

19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes. I think it

20 would be nice.

21 MEMBER KOCAN: Otherwise, I can go

22 over my major changes and just get approval from the

23 other Commissioners.

24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: No. I'm going to




1 say this and I'm trying to be very -- this is my

2 profession. I am not happy about the transcript. If

3 that was my court reporter, she'd be in real deep

4 doo-doo. So I would like a perfect copy.

5 MR. EVANCOE: Madam Chair.


7 MR. EVANCOE: Just to add onto what

8 you're saying. We've had that same observation, and

9 the one thing I just recently worked out with the

10 head of that firm is to start providing them with the

11 tapes. Because I think part of the problem is that

12 they're not familiar with the folks that we all know,

13 and so that will help a little bit for them to be

14 able follow the tape. That's how Christine, on our

15 staff, used to do it, was by the tapes.

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think that is a

17 very good idea. I've done hearings myself, I know

18 how difficult these hearings are for a court

19 reporter. I know that after you put in a full day of

20 reporting and you start at 7:30 at night, and at

21 11:17 you're still writing, it is exhausting.

22 My problem is the fact that there are

23 just some things that I feel that a reporter should

24 know. And the example being, when you say aye, it's




1 a-y-e; when you call roll, it's r-o-l-l. And those

2 are just minor things that I would expect a person to

3 know.

4 All right, with the corrections that

5 will be submitted and we'll get a true copy, is there

6 a motion to approve the minutes of November 20, 2002-

7 MEMBER KOCAN: They will come back to

8 us.

9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Oh, they will come

10 back to us. It is getting tiresome, see?

11 Okay, do we have to have any kind of

12 motion at all?

13 No. We'll just submit it to you and

14 then we'll get everything back.




18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Moving on to the

19 next item. Matters for Discussion: Discussion on

20 sheduling the joint meeting with City Council.

21 I give up.

22 MEMBER KOCAN: I haven't heard

23 anything from any other Planning Commission members

24 with regard it our recommended joint meeting. I will




1 state again right now where we are. I'm more

2 concerned about our subcommittee meeting dates than I

3 am about a joint meeting at this time.

4 MEMBER RUYLE: Here Here.

5 MEMBER KOCAN: So I would like if we

6 can sit down and set at least a committee meeting for

7 every committee so that we can start doing the City's

8 business.

9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Does anybody else

10 have any comments on that?

11 Member Markham.

12 MEMBER MARKHAM: I agree with

13 Member Kocan. I think that we need to have a

14 committee meeting on a regular basis. I also was

15 very unhappy that we had a meeting scheduled on what

16 is typically a Planning Commission night and it was

17 canceled by the Council, and we get criticized a lot

18 because we're not responsive to the needs of the

19 developing community. And that was a night we could

20 have been doing the City's business, and it turned

21 out to be a night that nothing happened, and I was

22 not happy about that. So I'm not real anxious to

23 schedule another meeting unless it's at our

24 convenience.




1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Does anybody else

2 have any comments about that?

3 (There was no response from the

4 Members.)

5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: All right. I don't

6 think we should even bother with this. Let's put

7 this off for several months. We have subcommittee

8 meetings that are much more important at the present

9 time. And since it is City Council that requested a

10 meeting with the Planning Commission, if they feel

11 that there is a need, you know, they can contact us

12 and they can set the date, give us three choices and

13 then the Commission can just vote on the date.

14 All right. With that, are there any

15 special reports?

16 (There was no response from the

17 Members.)

18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Any audience

19 participation?

20 (There was no response from the

21 audience.)

22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: All right. If

23 there is no audience participation, I'm closing the

24 audience participation.




1 Do I hear a motion to adjourn?

2 MEMBER MARKHAM: I'll move.

3 MEMBER PAPP: Second.

4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: All in favor say

5 Aye.


7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We are adjourned

8 at 11:21.

9 (The above proceedings ended at

10 11:21 p.m.)

11 _ _ _




















4 I, MAUREEN A. HARAN, do hereby certify

5 that I have recorded stenographically, the

6 proceedings taken in the above-entitled matter, at

7 the time and place hereinbefore set forth; and I do

8 further certify that the foregoing transcript,

9 consisting of 159 (one hundred fifty-nine) pages, is

10 a full, true, and correct transcript of my

11 stenographic notes.




15 Signature on File

16 Maureen A. Haran, C.S.R. 3606

17 My commission expires: 1-24-06



20 01-24-03

21 (Date)

22 Signature on File

Donna Jernigan, Planning Assistant


Date Approved: April 9, 2003