CALL TO ORDER

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

Present: Members John Avdoulos, Victor Cassis, Andrew Gutman, David Lipski, Lynn Kocan, Mark Pehrson, Lowell Sprague (arrived 9:20 p.m.), Wayne Wrobel

Also Present: Barbara McBeth, Director of Planning; Tim Schmitt, Planner; Mark Spencer, Planner; Lance Shipman, Landscape Architect; Ben Croy, Civil Engineer; David Gillam, City Attorney; John Freeland, Wetland Consultant; Larry DeBrincat, Woodland Consultant; Steve Dearing, Traffic Consultant

The meeting attendees recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

No one from the Audience wished to speak.

There was no Correspondence to share.

There were no Committee Reports.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth told the Planning Commission about some of the issues heard at the June 20, 2005 City Council meeting. The southwest corner of Fourteen Mile and Haggerty Road, the ell-shaped property brought forward for a car wash, was denied its rezoning from OST to B-3. The rezoning for the northwest corner of Taft and Eleven Mile, brought forward by Felix Valbuena and now under the control of Mike Fellows, was postponed to provide the Applicant with time to present his plan using the PRO Ordinance or other residential option. The Wixom Road (Wizinsky/Schafer) rezoning request for R-T was denied.

Ms. McBeth said that the residents had come forward and requested that the City move forward in applying for a grant to preserve Villagewood Lake. The Parks and Recreation Department and City Administration are working on that request.

There was no Consent Agenda.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Boulder Construction for Preliminary Site Plan, Woodland Permit, Wetland Permit, and Storm Water Management Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 10, on the north side of Twelve Mile between Dixon and Novi roads in the OS-1, Office Service District. The Applicant is proposing to construct a 63,234 square foot office building. The subject property is 4.458 acres.

Planner Tim Schmitt stated that the following names have been used over the past few months to describe this project: Novi Forum, Manchester Professional and Willowbrook Professional.

The subject property was located on a map for the Planning Commission. It is zoned OS-1 and master planned for office. Twelve Mile is to its south; Dixon Road is just to the west. To the east is the Stoneridge Office Center, Carlton Forest is further east, as is the Gumenick Office Building. All are zoned OS-1 and master planned for Office. Further to the west are the Townes at Liberty Park, zoned R-A. To the south is Fountainwalk, zoned RC. To the north are three pieces of land that the Planning Commission recently recommended rezoning. Also to the north is land zoned R-1 but there is a request for R-4 pending with the City Council. It is master planned for Single Family Residential.

There are no wetlands on the property. There are no regulated woodlands but there are regulated trees. The site plan is for approximately 63,000 square feet, and the gross leasable area square footage is 53,483 square feet.

The Applicant prepared a letter in response to the reviews. The Applicant is willing to comply with most all of the items identified in the reviews. This plan has been reviewed several times, and it appears that the City and Applicant have has determined how to solve the plan’s problems.

The Planning Review noted that the site is technically adjacent to residential and therefore an acceptable lighting plan must be submitted. The Planning Department believes that with a few alterations their lighting plan is acceptable. This building has undergone some interior redesign, which affects the parking space count. As a general office building, the Applicant would be required to provide 241 spaces. A complete medical building would require 306 spaces. A 50-50 mix would require 274 spaces. The submitted plan includes 247 spaces, which would not be enough for a medical office. After discussions with the Applicant, it appears that the pre-leasing activity on this building is about 95% medical. The building has now been proposed somewhat smaller to accommodate the need for more parking and would still allow for 90% medical use of the building. The Planning Commission should attach certain conditions to this plan if they choose to approve it.

A non-essential wetland is proposed to be filled on this site. Based on the Ordinance, it does not meet the essentiality criteria. There are two regulated trees on the site. The Applicant has agreed to replace the trees at a ratio of 3:1.

The Traffic Review indicated that there are no traffic concerns. The Engineering Review noted minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

The Façade Review indicated that there is too much EIFS on the building. The Applicant is over 30% on the four fasciae. The Applicant will discuss this.

The Landscape Review indicated that the landscape islands are undersized, though the Applicant has indicated that he has since increased their size. 88 canopy trees are required on this site, although only 57 have been proposed in and around the parking area. The Applicant has asked for a waiver for the use of evergreen trees in lieu of canopy trees. The street tree requirement could be waived in order for this site to conform to other projects along Oakland County-controlled roads. The Applicant is adjacent to residential in the western yard, which requires a berm that would have a width of 32 feet. The Applicant has proposed to provide half of that berm and retain the remainder of the measurement on the interior of their property line. The berm will be located on the residential side, and there will be a retaining wall adjacent to the parking lot. The Planning Department has historically not been supportive of this approach. The City would like to see the entire greenbelt provided. However, the Applicant has acquired (or has on option on) all three of the residential properties. The Planning Department would support this waiver request, should the Applicant actually submit the Office rezoning request for those properties.

Mike Blanek of Stucky Vitale Architects, 27172 Woodward, Royal Oak, addressed the Planning Commission. He stated that the Applicant has been working with the City to address their concerns. The building will be reduced to meet the parking needs. This is predicated on their pre-leasing activity. This will allow the Applicant to meet the parking lot landscaping requirements as well.

Mr. Blanek has suggested that the Applicant can bring the brick up higher on the building in order to meet the façade requirements. They might make the entries fully stone.

Mr. Blanek said that they will be adding more trees and should be able to meet the tree requirement with the reduction of the building size. The new gross building size is about 57,000 square feet.

Chair Kocan closed the Public Hearing after determining that there was no correspondence and no one from the audience wished to speak.

Member Avdoulos noted that this plan has gone through several transformations as a result of the Applicant working with the City. He was certain that the reduction in the size of the building will alleviate most of the issues – parking, landscape, etc. Member Avdoulos asked Mr. Schmitt if the reduced building appeared to address the problems. Mr. Schmitt responded that the Boulder Design submitted a new set of plans and it does appear that most every issue has been addressed. Of note was the change from parallel parking to standard 90-degree parking on the far north end of the site. The Applicant added more parking as well. There are some minor tweaks that the Applicant will be asked to make on the plan. Mr. Schmitt was confident that the Applicant will meet the intent of the Ordinance. He felt that the motion language provided by the Planning Department to the Planning Commission was probably overstated, based on the revised plan that the Applicant now intends to propose.

Mr. Schmitt asked the Planning Commission, if they choose to approve this plan, to include in their motion that the Applicant must reduce the size of the 90%-medical use building so that the appropriate number of parking spaces is provided. This would probably eliminate landscape waivers.

Member Avdoulos confirmed that the Road Commission of Oakland County does not allow the street trees. Landscape Architect Lance Shipman said that based on repeated denials on proposed site plans, the City understands now that street trees will not be approved for Grand River, Twelve Mile and probably Ten Mile. The County is protective of their right-of-way, which includes their denying street trees. Member Avdoulos would prefer that Oakland County would allow street trees and offered to make that stand in any effort to get them approved.

Member Avdoulos asked about the use of evergreen trees. Mr. Shipman explained that evergreens are sometimes used instead of canopy trees if screening is necessary or if the islands are large enough to accommodate evergreens. Sometimes it is a design issue, and evergreens are more appropriate. Along the western boundary there are evergreens proposed, partially for a screening requirement, and the Applicant would like those trees to count as parking lot trees. If the rezoning on the adjacent property goes through, the need to screen these properties from one another is less important and the Applicant could re-design the area for canopy trees.

Member Avdoulos said the project is heading in the right direction. What is presented is a very nice, traditional looking building with a strong character. This stretch of Twelve Mile is setting the tone that the City would like to see.

Member Avdoulos reiterated that the Applicant has agreed to increase the brick and decrease the EIFS material. He agreed with that approach.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Member Cassis asked what would happen if the Applicant changes his mind on any of these pending issues. Mr. Schmitt responded that the Applicant would have to come before the Planning Commission again.

Chair Kocan asked about the berm for the westerly property line. She confirmed that at this time a 4.5-foot berm is required because of the residential zoning on the adjacent property. If the property is rezoned to OST, then no berm is required. Chair Kocan asked that, "…and in consideration of the Stucky Vitale letter of June 16, 2005" be added to the motion. The maker and seconder of the motion agreed.

In the matter of the request of Boulder Construction for Manchester Professional Centre (Novi Forum), SP04-59b, motion to approve the Preliminary Site Plan subject to: 1) A Planning Commission Waiver to allow evergreens to count toward parking lot canopy tree requirement; 2) A Planning Commission Waiver for the street tree requirement along Twelve Mile; 3) A rezoning request being submitted for the neighboring properties that rectifies the Applicant’s need for a berm waiver; 4) The reduction of the building to meet the 90% medical parking requirement (as stated in the response letter); 5) All comments in the Staff and Consultant reviews being addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal; and 6) Consideration of the Stucky Vitale letter of June 16, 2005; for the reason that the plan meets the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Pehrson:

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of the ADCO Group for a recommendation to City Council of a proposed Concept Plan being considered as a Special Development Option in the GE, Gateway East District. The subject property is located in Section 23, south of Grand River Avenue and west of Meadowbrook Road. The subject property is 27.73 acres.

Member Cassis asked to be recused as he had an interest in the property.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth reminded the Planning Commission that this project was previously considered on May 25, 2005, at which time the Planning Commission postponed the matter until the Applicant had time to provide additional information. She said that the Planning Department has since met with the Applicant to discuss alternatives and the shared parking study. The Applicant has provided a response letter and the shared parking study, along with a new site plan. The Planning Department has prepared a comprehensive review of the response letter, in order to continue this project moving forward.

Planner Mark Spencer said that the information previously discussed by Planner Darcy Schmitt would not be rehashed, though a majority of her comments were still valid. He continued with a discussion of the Applicant’s response letter. The Applicant had been asked to describe how this proposal provides a clearly demonstrable benefit to the users of the property and to the community. The Applicant responded that the mixed-use form and function created interesting and affordable spaces, contains outward urbanization, contributes to community building and increases the opportunity for social diversity and equity.

Planning studies support the contention that higher density housing located near places of employment and shopping reduces sprawl and often provides affordable housing and social diversity. Due to the limited amount of retail space, this development will not provide significant shopping opportunities for its residents. Most shopping trips will be to off-site locations. The proposed aesthetic amenities, public spaces and recreational opportunities may foster community building within the development, but since the public amenities are limited to the several small public areas, the development may not provide any substantial community building to the City as a whole.

Mr. Spencer said that the Applicant listed four "Key Unique Design Qualities" about his property. The first quality is the pocket parks, which are meant to invite the public into the development. There are two along Grand River and there are parks next to the commercial buildings. The two pocket parks on Grand River could act as an entryway for pedestrian traffic and invite people into the development. The size of the other parks may limit their use to a break area for employees, an outdoor seating area for the restaurants, or a resting spot for the customers. No entry feature is proposed to draw the public to use the public open space.

The second benefit the Applicant suggested is "Pedestrian connectivity (unique to Novi), linking the site and the surrounding community via an extensive walk network." Mr. Spencer showed the walkway system on the plan.

This proposal is lacking in pedestrian connectivity. Sidewalks and paths do not connect to any of the City’s non-motorized systems. There is no connection at Grand River. The neighbor’s sidewalk ends west of the entry drive. There is no sidewalk along the eastern boundary of one of the parcels. There is no connection through the public right of way to the southerly subdivision. The plan does propose a stub to the easterly property and a location for a sidewalk connection to the west. At this time they have not offered to provide any connection to the system. There are also connectivity problems within the development. No front yard sidewalks are proposed for buildings 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13 and 14. There are sidewalks on only one side of the buildings. Interconnection is not conveniently provided between all of the buildings, although this can be improved.

The third listed benefit is "Mixed use live/work architecture (unique to Novi)." This is a different concept that the City has not seen. The Planning Commission may want to recommend that if the City Council approves of this concept plan that they include conditions to insure that the work/business area in these buildings is used as intended. The Planning Staff has concerns that these units may become part of the residential component.

The fourth benefit listed is "A comprehensive design that blends retail/office, live/work, town square, and residential. The site and architecture draws the public into and through the site, while transitioning and respecting the adjacent single family and multi-family developments." Mr. Spencer said that this proposed development is primarily a multi-family residential development with 92.5% of the total floor space and 84.4% of the site area dedicated to residential uses. The Zoning Ordinance states that each use shall comprise at least 10 percent of either the net site area or the total gross floor area of all buildings. A City Council variance would be required to deviate from this requirement.

Mr. Spencer continued with his comments on the site design. The community building at the end of the main boulevard will provide a focal point at the end of the street but it will probably be only an occasional gathering space for the residents of the development. There is no proposal to have this area used outside of the development.

Mr. Spencer said the commercial part of the site is designed as a typical strip type development relying upon Grand River visibility to attract people rather than using a unique site design to attract people into the site. A site designed with an attractive entryway, with commercial uses lining its "main street" and with more destinations for the public, may encourage more people to enter the development.

Mr. Spencer said that one dumpster location was added (for a total of three) to serve the commercial buildings. But dumpsters are not provided for the residential buildings where curbside pickup is proposed. Pedestrian and traffic conflicts and aesthetic problems could occur on trash collection days. With some buildings having entrances on only one side of the building, there could be garbage from fourteen units collecting outside of a single building. This could block driveways and sidewalks. It would be better to have dumpsters in this case.

A shared parking analysis was provided but residential parking was excluded from the analysis. This could be problematic since few opportunities exist for on-street parking, and because the guest parking is limited to 14 spaces adjacent to the community building. The Planning Department Staff believes this will result in the shared use of the commercial parking spaces.

Mr. Spencer continued that there still is little or no consideration for the wetlands and their associated 25-foot setback on the site. Off-site wetland mitigation is proposed at a location to be determined at a later time. Preserving more wetland area would make the remaining wetlands more viable. The Planning Department also thinks that more woodlands could be saved with a more creative site design.

Mr. Spencer said that the Ordinance encourages the use of shared rear access roads located behind the buildings closest to Grand River Avenue. An access road is provided behind the second tier of buildings and it does not provide access to a small parcel just east of the site nor does it connect to Fountain Park Drive.

The Planning Commission expressed concern with the proximity of the proposed buildings to the homes south of the project. In the City’s multiple family districts (RM-1 and RM-2) a 75-foot rear yard setback is required. A larger setback would reduce the impact of a multiple family development on a neighboring single family development. Mr. Spencer located the approximate location of a 75-foot setback. The Zoning Ordinance states that the City Council can set a perimeter setback and berming at its discretion to achieve a specific and generally recognized planning objective based upon the recommendation of the City Planning Staff or Consultants. The Planning Department recommends a minimum of 75-foot setback.

Chair Kocan asked Mr. Spencer to clarify the issue of site composition. Mr. Spencer said that his percentages were based on the Applicant’s calculations on the site plan, where retail, office and restaurant uses were lumped together. That amounted to 4.2 acres, which is about 15% of the site. Chair Kocan confirmed that the Ordinance requires 10% for each use.

Matthew Quinn appeared on behalf of the Applicant. He said there is a difference of opinion regarding the interpretation of what the Ordinance considers residential and non-residential. Mr. Quinn read the section of the Ordinance, "…the non-residential shall meet 10% of the overall…" He said that the non-residential is not broken down. There are between five and six acres of non-residential on this site of 27 acres.

Mr. Quinn said that there are now seven pedestrian entrances coming into the plan. There is an entry on the west site that leads to a path that goes all the way to the trillium area and that is a direct access to Grand River. The walkway continues, and goes 360 degrees around this site. There are access points at two different open nodes that were designed with sitting areas. There is an access on each side of the driveway.

Mr. Quinn said that a comment was made that a few buildings did not have sidewalks in their front yards. Mr. Quinn said that this area of the buildings has the driveway locations. They provided the sidewalk across the street. The Applicant considered it a low traffic area where the sidewalk is not provided on the sides of buildings. The major traffic areas are covered with sidewalks on both sides of the street.

This project was first presented to the City with 265 units. It now has only 225 residential units. This is a significant reduction, Mr. Quinn said, especially on some of the most expensive land in the City, which is the land along the Grand River corridor. The Gateway District is a district that calls for density, and therefore the land is more expensive than other areas of Novi. This property is massed so that it fits on this land. It fits into the Gateway Ordinance. It is one-half of the density that the Ordinance allows. The developer has spent a lot of time looking at this particular component and site plan, both in the density and in the mix of uses.

The loading space was added for the commercial uses. The follow up comment by the Planning Department was that the area wasn’t deep enough to accommodate a bigger truck. Mr. Quinn said that area could be made even deeper.

Mr. Quinn said that the Applicant is still seeking the Section Nine Waiver. He said that at the last meeting none of the professionals that worked on this plan were asked to speak regarding its design. Mr. Quinn said that the architect and traffic consultant were both available to address the façade and traffic study, respectively.

Mr. Quinn said that this plan meets the intent of the Gateway Ordinance. It provides a good mixed use. The Applicant looks for a positive recommendation from the Planning Commission. The plan brings a real value to the City. With with condominiums such as this, the value of the design outweighs the cost to the City. People say they want to stop urban sprawl; this is the type of development that does so. The plan is not spread over a large acreage site; it was designed in accordance with the Gateway Ordinance.

Chair Kocan opened the floor for public comment:

Chair Kocan asked Member Pehrson to read the communications into the record:

Richard Antuna, 41728 Cherry Hill: Concerned about the effect of development on the natural features and wildlife, and the height of the proposed condominiums.

Jean Grant, 41824 Cherry Hill: Did not support the Section Nine Waiver. She noted that the Main Street area, Town Center area, Hummer and Gateway Village are completely brick.

Chair Kocan closed the Public Hearing. She noted that although the Public Hearing may have already been closed at a previous meeting, this is a project of special interest and the reopening of the Public Hearing was warranted.

City Attorney David Gillam requested to discuss the specific criteria that the Planning Commission is requested to address in their motion to City Council. He read from the Ordinance, "In making its recommendation to the City Council, the Planning Commission shall determine:

a) Consistency with the Master Plan;

b) Innovative planning and design excellence;

c) Relationship to adjacent land uses;

d) Compliance with this Ordinance;

e) Benefits to the community such as publicly dedicated parks and open areas, and public facilities;

f) Pedestrian and/or vehicular safety provisions;

g) Aesthetic beauty in terms of design, exterior materials and landscaping, including internal compatibility within the development as well as its relationship to surrounding properties;

h) Provisions for the users of the project.

The final criterion is:

i) An evaluation of the standards in subsection 904D, E, & F. Some of the items that Mr. Gillam cited were:

Each particular proposed use in the development, as well as the size and location of such use, shall result in and contribute to a reasonable and mutually supportive mix of uses on the site, and a compatibility of uses in harmony with the surrounding area and other downtown areas of the City;

A recognizable and substantial benefit to the ultimate users of the project and to the community where such benefit would otherwise be unfeasible or unlikely to be achieved;

The proposed type and density of development shall not result in an unreasonable increase in the use of public services, facilities and utilities, and shall not place an unreasonable burden upon the subject and/or surrounding land and/or property owners and occupants and/or the natural environment;

The development will result in a material enhancement to the area of the City in which it is situated;

The proposed development shall not have a materially adverse impact upon the Master Plan;

The proposed development will not result in an unreasonable negative economic impact upon surrounding properties;

The proposed development shall contain at least as much usable open space as would be required in this Ordinance in relation to the most dominant use in the development;

Each particular proposed use in the development, as well as the size and location of such use, shall result in and contribute to a reasonable and mutually supportive mix of uses on the site, and a compatibility of uses in harmony with the surrounding area and other downtown areas of the City;

The proposed development shall be under single ownership and/or control;

The project has shown that design coordination and connection with adjacent property, developed or not, has been accomplished;

A unique and attractive street-level environment has been achieved that focuses on the pedestrian experience;

Vehicular safety provisions and controls have been applied particularly with regard to access to major thoroughfares;

Aesthetic quality is improved in terms of design, exterior materials and landscaping, including internal compatibility within the development as well as its relationship to surrounding properties;

There shall be a perimeter setback and berming, as found to be necessary by the City Council, for the purpose of buffering the development in relation to surrounding properties;

There shall be underground installation of utilities, including electricity and telecommunications facilities, as found necessary or appropriate by the City;

The design of pedestrian walkways shall be reviewed with the view of achieving safety, and also considering the objectives and intent of this District;

Signage, lighting, streetscape, landscaping, building materials for the exterior of all structures, and other features of the project, shall be designed and completed with the objective of achieving an integrated and controlled development, consistent with the character of the community, surrounding development or developments, and natural features of the area. The City's Grand River Corridor Plan shall be incorporated in terms of design features and concepts applicable to the subject property;

Developments with non-residential uses, including non-residential uses within a mixed-use development that have a residential component, which abut off-site residentially zoned property, shall incorporate noise reduction and visual screening provisions such as earthen and/or landscape berms and/or decorative walls, which shall be approved as to design and location;

All development sites fronting on Grand River Avenue shall be constructed to maximize traffic safety and convenience.

Mr. Gillam said that this is a long list, but review of the above items may be beneficial to the Planning Commission members. Chair Kocan then restated the process for a plan with a Special Development Option. First the Planning Commission sends a recommendation to City Council on the Concept Plan. The City Council approves or denies the Concept Plan. Then, the City Attorney prepares the Special Development Option Agreement, which is essentially a contract between the City and the developer. It sets forth the conditions that City Council has placed upon their preliminary approval. That Agreement comes back to City Council for approval, then it is executed and recorded. After the Agreement is in place, the Preliminary Site Plan review and approval is handled at the City Council level. Final Site Plan approval can be at the City Council level or administrative.

Member Wrobel wanted to support this project. He still did not see where enough parking has been provided in the residential area of this plan. People will not want to park far away from the home they are visiting. They will park on the road and this may create safety hazards.

Member Wrobel still thought the southernmost building was too close to Cherry Hill homesteads. It didn’t seem to fit the area. He was unsure that he could support the project.

Ms. McBeth said that the City Consultants were also in attendance and questions could be directed to them. Member Wrobel asked the Traffic Consultant, Steve Dearing, to comment on the residential section of the plan. Mr. Dearing said that the shared parking study focused on the nonresidential portion of the site. He was also concerned about the residential parking. The layout of the site is problematic. There are short driveways, so parked cars could block the sidewalk and possibly hang into the roadway. Pedestrians should not have to step into the street to get around a parked vehicle. There is concern that the two-car garage may not be big enough to house two American made vehicles. There were no provisions for guest parking. In some areas the number of driveways precludes off-street parking. This has not been quantified at the Concept Plan level, but would be looked at and commented upon at the time of Preliminary Site Plan submittal.

Mr. Quinn said that Mr. Dearing was incorrect in some of his statements. Chair Kocan asked Mr. Gillam whether she should let the Applicant address the Planning Commission. Mr. Gillam said that all of the Planning Commission members could comment first, and at an appropriate time, the Applicant could then respond to all of the comments.

Member Pehrson said this was the right project for this area. This concept will be what is on that corner. He was disappointed that questions posed at the first meeting have not been resolved. This is the first real test of the Ordinance, and he anticipated that there would have to be some give and take with this design review. In reviewing the criteria, Member Pehrson found that each of the points made by Mr. Gillam were important. When the plan gets to City Council, all of the criteria must be addressed.

Member Pehrson thought that the mixture of the use in accordance with the character and the adaptability of the land were acceptable. This proposal will excite those who want to live in an urban area. People will be able to walk to amenities, restaurants, parks, etc. It may not be appropriate for someone who wants to have a two-acre parcel for his home.

Member Pehrson was troubled by some of the buildings being near the wetland areas. He did not consider the pocket parks were really parks. They are features that meet the intent of the Ordinance, but he did not think they convey the type of use that he would like for a pocket park. They need to be larger and more creative. The greenspace is lacking. There is too much concrete and asphalt. People want to see more greenspace. He questioned the uniqueness of the entry. He understood that to be a subjective statement, but he didn’t see where it marked the entry clearly enough to prevent drivers from passing by this destination.

Member Pehrson agreed that this plan met the intent of the Master Plan. He expected a range of opinions on whether this was an innovative plan. This is the showpiece for Novi. He did not have a problem with the Section Nine Waiver but he did have a problem with using a wood material because it will require maintenance early on. He said there is a relationship to the adjacent land uses. He did not think the parks and open spaces achieved what is expected by the Ordinance. These seating areas may not even be inviting.

Member Pehrson was concerned about traffic safety. He did not like that people will have to cross the street to get to a sidewalk. He was concerned about the lack of parking. People will get "creative" with their parking. He said this is an urban cityscape that is being developed, but there must be some practicality to the plan. Sidewalks must connect in all directions and to all buildings and to all adjacent properties.

Member Pehrson could not endorse the plan as it has been submitted unless the Applicant provides noise cancellation with berming or woodlands, to protect the people who live to the south. These are not homes being proposed next to Cherry Hill – they are three story buildings. He has not seen the lighting plan, but he assumes that the Cherry Hill residents are going to want to look at that plan too. He felt that the 75-foot setback was imperative. Member Pehrson assumed that the ADA parking spaces will be added to the plan.

Member Pehrson wanted to ensure that the live/work spaces remain as such, and do not become pure residential. That must be a restriction of the Special Development Option.

Member Avdoulos agreed that this plan is consistent with the Master Plan. He thought the plan was heading toward becoming unique and innovative. There is potential for the plan. This is a Concept Plan that must have flexibility, so that the Applicant has leeway in making the changes requested by the Planning Commission and City Council. If the site is too crowded or is encroaching on the neighbors or the natural features, it will have to be redesigned. Even though the plan has less density than the Ordinance allows, the layout still has to work.

Member Avdoulos said Grand River is not similar to Northville’s Main Street where the speed limit is 25 mph. This is a 45 mph district. There are retail buildings at Gateway Village. This project will have destination stores. He noted that people who frequent Soccer Zone don’t even walk to Gateway Village – they drive. He did not picture too many people walking to the stores at Brooktown. He said this is similar to the development in Troy that he has visited, although that one has more retail, and it is basically set up for the people in the area. It will be nice for the people in Gateway Village and Fountain Park Apartments to be able to walk through this development. The pedestrian connectivity is important. There should be a connection into Meadowbrook Glens. Then, the whole area becomes a network and acts as a community.

Member Avdoulos said that the retail/office space adjacent to Grand River should meet the Façade Ordinance, so they carry the consistency that is along that strip. He could understand the idea of breaking up the consistency further into the development, but the front buildings should follow the Ordinance. The Ordinance states that the buildings should be up against the sidewalk, but he remembered from the last meeting that the consensus was that a design of that nature was unrealistic. The speed of traffic on Grand River is never going to slow down. This area is not ready for buildings along the road.

Member Avdoulos said this property has a significant frontage. He did not doubt the quality or aesthetics of the Applicant’s design. The City however, is picturing a slightly different design. The pocket parks range in size from several thousand feet all the way down to 120 square feet. He did not see this project as an urban project – it will get its foot traffic from the people who live in the area. The public spaces need to be designed so that they look a bit more inviting. Just placing them in certain spots is not going to do the trick.

Member Avdoulos pictured the entry drive and he thought it would look good and very formal. But the question is, what’s next? The community building is for the people who live in the development. Could it be used for something else? This plan is designed as a multiple-residential use, with a smattering of retail and pocket parks. The concept is there, but it must evolve.

Member Avdoulos recently visited a community center in Canton that has more of the feel that he hopes this plan will achieve. He cited a community building in Northville that also has a restaurant. He said he could picture something more of this nature for Brooktown. He then cited the area of Six Mile and Haggerty as a dense residential area with commercial at the corner that can be reached by walking, which does work in this high-traffic area. Member Avdoulos thought that one of the intents of this Ordinance was to coordinate the connectivity of the pedestrian walkways. He said the reality that Grand River is not pedestrian-oriented must be considered, though.

Member Avdoulos said that City Council will really look at the natural elements on the property. There is a path that goes through the trillium area, but the buildings may be too close to that area which takes away from its appeal and character.

Member Avdoulos said there must be sensitivity to the adjacent properties. He felt this Concept Plan had potential. There are concerns that can and will be addressed. City Council must be given flexibility in what they approve. Just because this plan will be unique to Novi doesn’t mean that it can’t be a little more special, and reflect what the Ordinance wants. Many of the Planning Commission comments are valid, but there needs to be more emphasis on the pedestrians and the openness. This theme may not need to be pulled all the way into the site. People may be hesitant to walk around a condominium complex. If Member Avdoulos were to visit this site, he would like the front end to be interesting and it would encourage him to stay and look around. Everything he has seen in this City is a destination point. The Main Street development didn’t pan out at first, but then the destination locations like Gus O’Connors and Mongolian came in. This plan must meet the criteria and may need a little more messaging.

Chair Kocan said this is the first Special Development Option to be reviewed for the City of Novi. The Planning Commission is learning the Ordinance and they are looking at the intent of the Ordinance. They are looking at the feasibility of the Ordinance. Some of the decisions that were made took four or five years to get on the books. There were decisions made about on-street parking in front and behind the building. She said this was something that should perhaps be looked at. She liked the concept of the buildings up against the sidewalk, but the reality of the area must be considered. There is the funeral home and the Gateway Village project with its parking in front already in place. City Council will have to decide if that is what they want.

Chair Kocan said she noted two major areas of concern. Her first reaction to the plan was that it was a residential development with some commercial. She did not believe that was the intent of the Ordinance. The intent was to highlight the commercial and office, and provide some residential with it. She may be wrong in her interpretation, but she noted that the Ordinance does state City Council will address any ambiguities (Section 904.e.3). She thought these pending items will have to go before City Council for consideration. There is a traffic issue. The City is looking for more residential parking – there are only 14 spaces provided for guests. The Applicant feels that parking is available on the roadway. A consensus must be reached. She did not want parking on the road. She would hope that parking could be provided elsewhere. There are other developments that have shared parking, but there are also areas that have been set aside for additional parking. This area does not provide for additional parking. The numbers reflect that the plan is short on parking by almost 25%.

Chair Kocan wants the wetland buffer intrusion eliminated from the plan. She said it has been stated that wetland mitigation cannot be onsite. She said the reason is the plan is maxed out with concrete. There should be room for mitigation on the site. She endorsed the 75-foot setback requirement, and she said that City Council can make that determination. There are some areas of the design that are ten feet away from the property line. She could not recommend that to City Council. In some places it is the sidewalk.

Chair Kocan knew that the Planning Commission requires Concept Plans to be refined, particularly with a Special Development Option, because they are not going to see this plan again. It is really important that all of the Planning Commission concerns are stated now. City Council can decide which of the Ordinances are important and adhered to on this plan. She only wished to point out the shortcomings to City Council. This is going to be a premiere design for future Special Development Options and the Gateway District. It behooves the City for the Planning Commission to take additional time in reviewing this plan. This plan is going to set a footprint for the rest of the district. In Member Pehrson’s comments, many of the criteria were addressed. This plan does meet the Master Plan. She would still like to see more compatibility with the natural features and more park area. She wanted something that is more inviting to the community, as opposed to just those people who live within this small community.

Mr. Quinn appreciated the Planning Commission’s comments. In the resubmission, all of the driveway lengths were changed. There is room for two cars in the garages, and space in the driveways that doesn’t intrude on the sidewalks. Shared parking areas have been added to the plan. They are on the street. There are 24 new parking places. As much as possible, more parking has been added.

Mr. Quinn said that certain buildings are only two stories. That was done on purpose, to reduce the intrusion on the neighbors. They are about the same height as the two-story homes on Cherry Hill. The closer building averages 73 feet on its setback. It is not parallel. It was placed on an angle to reduce the intrusion. The building could be placed parallel, and then the whole building would be more intrusive. The building acts as a buffer to the community center. The building is key; it keeps the noise down from the community center and the pool. The entire area is going to be heavily landscaped and the Cherry Hill residents won’t even know that the building is there.

Mr. Quinn said that the plan is preserving two larger wetlands. There isn’t room on site to mitigate.

Mr. Quinn said that comments were made that the entrance wasn’t grand enough to mark arrival. He said that it would be to the Applicant’s benefit to have an appropriately marked entry. Through signage and the entry design, the Applicant believes he is providing a well-marked focal point.

Mr. Quinn said the sidewalk will be placed up to the site’s boundary. The Applicant is willing to work with the City, if they wish to contact adjacent property owners about creating connectivity. The plan can hook up to Fountain Park and Marty Feldman. To the west there is a property that this Applicant has no authority over. Then there is the funeral home. Mr. Quinn noted that the City has a sidewalk budget line that developers fund. He thought this seemed like a terrific place for the City to spend some of that money.

Mr. Quinn said the Applicant looked at linking the pedestrian walkway to Meadowbrook Glens. Because of the location of the retention basin and one of the homes, there is no way to make the link without trespassing on private property. Their thought was their sidewalk would link to the adjacent property. When that land develops, the City can require the link to Meadowbrook Glens at that time. There is no sidewalk at Cherry Hill. It is nice to put in sidewalks, but this request requires looking to the City to put in that sidewalk.

Mr. Quinn said the shared parking study numbers are accurate. By the time this plan goes before City Council, everyone will see that the numbers work out. There is a total of 29,000 square feet of commercial which the Applicant feels is significant. That number includes a 4,000-5,000 square-foot restaurant. The retail mix is going to be market driven. This retail cannot duplicate what is across the street. One of the purposes of Gateway is to bring in residences close enough to Main Street so that those homeowners can use the businesses there. He did not think the intent of Gateway was to make this area a self-contained neighborhood, where people never have to leave. The idea was to get people living close enough to downtown that they would help support it. What will probably be located in this area will be a pizza place, a beauty parlor, an ice cream shop or donut shop, a Starbucks, etc. The Applicant agrees with the Planning Commission, that this is a Concept Plan. The final design will be refined over the next months. The Planning Commission’s comments will be taken into consideration.

Mr. Quinn said this is a plan that brings a significant contribution to the City. Ultimately, they believe it will be approved.

Mr. Spencer clarified that there is a mixed-use criteria that must be met in the Ordinance. At this time, this project does not qualify as a mixed-use development; therefore the residential only density would apply to the plan. The mix of two- and three-bedroom units allows approximately 8+/- units per acre. More exact calculations must be performed on this plan to determine what the density of this plan really is. The Applicant is correct; mixed-use developments can have double the density of what is proposed. To qualify as a mixed-used development, each use shall comprise either 10% of the site area or the total gross floor area (Section 904.b).

Chair Kocan noted for the record that Member Sprague arrived at 9:20 p.m.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

In the matter of the request of ADCO Group, LLC, for Brooktown, SP05-24, motion to recommend approval to City Council for a Special Development Option Concept Plan subject to the comments on the attached review letters being addressed at the time of the Preliminary Site Plan Review, subject to: 1) A City Council Variance for front yard parking, which is not permitted in the Gateway East District (Section 903A.7.a); 2) A City Council Variance for excessive building setback (110 feet proposed, maximum of ninety feet permitted); 3) A City Council Variance for reduced setback along Grand River Avenue (twenty feet required vs. ten feet proposed); 4) City Council Waiver for 2’9" masonry wall along Grand River Avenue, in lieu of required three-foot high berm; 5) A City Council Waiver to permit evergreen and ornamental trees to count as parking lot canopy trees (110 required vs. 48 currently proposed); 6) A City Council Waiver required to eliminate a six-foot tall landscaped berm along the southern property line adjacent to existing single-family residential; 7) A City Council Determination that adequate noise reduction and visual screening provisions have been applied along the southern property line, adjacent to existing single-family residential; 8) A City Council Waiver for lack of street trees throughout development (172 required vs. 88 provided); 9) A City Council Determination to allow condo trees to be spread throughout the development, rather than adjacent to units; 10) A City Council Determination that the shared parking meets the intent of the off-street parking Ordinance; 11) A City Council Determination that the frontage treatment provides "exceptional aesthetic quality" and meets intent of Gateway East District; 12) A City Council Waiver for proposed building façades, which do not meet Ordinance requirements; 13) A City Council Finding that the proposed Special Development Option meets the standards for Special Land Use approval; 14) Additional parking lot canopy trees will be provided; 15) A City Council Determination that the plan meets the pedestrian and vehicular safety Ordinances; 16) The comments and conditions in the Staff and Consultant reviews; for the reason that the plan meets the intent of the Master Plan for Land Use.

Member Avdoulos asked that, "The exclusion of the buildings that front Grand River from the City Council Façade Waiver" be added to the motion. He wished to keep the entry buildings in concert with the Façade Ordinance. The maker and the seconder of the motion agreed.

Member Avdoulos said that the Planning Commission typically requires the Applicant to submit a response letter that addresses the comments made by the Planning Department and its Consultants. He thanked the Applicant for doing so. This indicated to Member Avdoulos that the Applicant is seriously looking at the plan and what can be done to make it unique and something that is pleasing to the City and to the area. He wished to continue that dialogue with this Applicant. He knew that City Council would be looking at the comments provided by the Planning Department, the Consultants and the Planning Commission. He thought it was important to note that the Applicant is willing to work with the City.

Member Sprague asked about the revised Concept Plan that was submitted just this week. Ms. McBeth said that the Planning Department discussed the alternatives for providing a revised plan with revised review letters. That would take about five weeks and would generate new review fees. The alternative was for them to write the response letter to address the concerns. They did attach the alternative plan to help describe how some of the previously discussed issues could be addressed. The Planning Department determined that would be acceptable. The City Council will probably review the plan on which the original consultant reviews were based. It hasn’t been determined yet how to introduce the revised Concept Plan, if at all.

Member Sprague appreciated the response letter from the Applicant. He made special note of the quality of the developer and his history in the community. He did not believe any of the Planning Commission’s comments were directed at the fact that this would not be a quality development. He looked forward to having this corner developed. He was concerned about how the proposed benefit to the City measured up to the City Council’s objectives. It would be interesting to see how well they match up. He did not really see how some of the issues were really positives to the City, other than this would result in a quality development.

Member Sprague did not feel that the pocket parks did much to invite the public into the development. He thought they looked like break areas or restaurant areas. They would not be a destination for the residents, and that is what he thought the City was looking for.

Member Sprague thought the plan looked more like a residential development with a strip mall in the front. He did not necessarily consider it a mixed-use project. He gathered that there is supposed to be a minimum10% showing for each of the uses. He said this is really the first Gateway East project so it is going to set a precedent. The Ordinance was written to give the City Council a huge amount of latitude. The role of the Planning Commission is to provide feedback to City Council and they will make the appropriate decision.

Member Sprague discussed the connectivity plan to Meadowbrook Glens. He thought that was good idea if the residents there wanted it. If they don’t want it, it shouldn’t be there.

Member Sprague thought the southerly buildings were too close. An average setback is not what the City is looking for; it is looking for an absolute setback. He was disappointed that the wetlands in the southeast were not going to be used as a natural buffer; instead, they are going to be filled in. He would like to see this re-addressed on future plans.

Chair Kocan asked the maker of the motion to include, "A City Council Determination that the mix of residential, commercial, office and park space meets the intent of the Ordinance." The maker and seconder of the motion agreed.

Chair Kocan asked if the following could also be included: Assurance that the work/business area in these buildings are used as intended. The maker and the seconder of the motion agreed.

Chair Kocan asked if the following could also be included: Additional dumpsters and locations are provided throughout the property, particularly in the residential area. The maker and seconder of the motion agreed.

Chair Kocan asked if the following could also be included: The setback of the multiple residential be a minimum of 75 feet. The maker and seconder of the motion agreed.

Chair Kocan asked if the following could be included: The Applicant considers (wetland) mitigation onsite. The maker and seconder of the motion agreed.

In the matter of the request of ADCO Group, LLC, for Brooktown, SP05-24, motion to recommend approval to City Council for a Special Development Option Concept Plan the comments on the attached review letters being addressed at the time of the Preliminary Site Plan Review, subject to: 1) A City Council Variance for front yard parking, which is not permitted in the Gateway East District (Section 903A.7.a); 2) A City Council Variance for excessive building setback (110 feet proposed, maximum of ninety feet permitted); 3) A City Council Variance for reduced setback along Grand River Avenue (twenty feet required vs. ten feet proposed); 4) City Council Waiver for 2’9" masonry wall along Grand River Avenue, in lieu of required three-foot high berm; 5) A City Council Waiver to permit evergreen and ornamental trees to count as parking lot canopy trees (110 required vs. 48 currently proposed); 6) A City Council Waiver required to eliminate a six-foot tall landscaped berm along the southern property line adjacent to existing single-family residential; 7) A City Council Determination that adequate noise reduction and visual screening provisions have been applied along the southern property line, adjacent to existing single-family residential; 8) A City Council Waiver for lack of street trees throughout development (172 required vs. 88 provided); 9) A City Council Determination to allow condo trees to be spread throughout the development, rather than adjacent to units; 10) A City Council Determination that the shared parking meets the intent of the off-street parking Ordinance; 11) A City Council Determination that the frontage treatment provides "exceptional aesthetic quality" and meets intent of Gateway East District; 12) A City Council Waiver for proposed building façades, which do not meet Ordinance requirements (see also item 17 below); 13) A City Council Finding that the proposed Special Development Option meets the standards for Special Land Use approval; 14) Additional parking lot canopy trees will be provided; 15) A City Council Determination that the plan meets the pedestrian and vehicular safety Ordinances; 16) The comments and conditions in the Staff and Consultant reviews; 17) The exclusion of the buildings that front Grand River from the City Council Façade Waiver; 18) A City Council Determination that the mix of residential, commercial, office and park space meets the intent of the Ordinance; 19) Assurance that the work/business area in these buildings are used as intended; 20) Additional dumpsters and locations are provided throughout the property, particularly in the residential area; 21) The setback of the multiple residential be a minimum of 75 feet; and 22) The Applicant considers (wetland) mitigation onsite; for the reason that the plan meets the intent of the Master Plan for Land Use.

Chair Kocan called for a break at 9:44 p.m.

Member Lipski has previously performed legal work for Crystal Halley and Remax 100 and though he did not think this past relationship would affect his ability to take part in this approval process, he wished to bring this information to the attention of the other Planning Commission members.

Planner Tim Schmitt located the property on an aerial map. The property is on the east side of Beck Road between Grand River and Eleven Mile. It is zoned OS-1. To the north is Grand River, where there are several vacant parcels. The adjacent north parcel is zoned R-A. To the south is Central Park Estates, zoned RM-1 and master planned for Multiple Family. To the west is the Providence property, zoned OSC. Further east are long narrow properties that also front on Grand River. The entire area is master planned for Office uses.

There is a substantial amount of wetlands on this site. There are also woodlands.

The Applicant is proposing a building of 7,500 square feet for the property. The rear two-thirds of the site is proposed to be left in its natural state. The Planning Department is concerned about the number of parking spaces the Applicant is proposing. 34 are required, and the Applicant is only proposing 23 usable spaces. The three parallel parking spaces have not been counted. With some modification, these spaces could be counted on the next site plan submittal.

Mr. Schmitt said that a ZBA variance is necessary for the lack of setback in the northern yard. Fifteen feet are required, and twelve feet are proposed. This item should be easily avoided at the time of Final Site Plan submittal; the concept plan provided for this meeting has already addressed this issue.

Mr. Schmitt said that a ZBA variance is necessary for the lack of parking lot setback in the southern yard. Ten feet of greenbelt are typically required. The Planning Commission can waive this requirement, because the additional setback areas have been provided on the site.

Mr. Schmitt said that a ZBA variance is also required for the lack of setback for the dumpster. This is a minor item that can be modified on the Final Site Plan submittal.

The Wetland and Woodland Reviews both recommended approval with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

The Landscape Review indicated that a Parking Lot Waiver is required for the lack of landscaping in the parking lot. This is a common issue on smaller sites. This should be discussed at this meeting.

A Planning Commission Waiver is requested for the lack of parking lot canopy trees. With the four-foot setback, it is questionable whether a canopy tree can actually be planted in that area.

A Planning Commission Waiver is required for the lack of berm against the residential property adjacent to this site. As mentioned, this property is vacant and is the sole residential property along Grand River. It is master planned for Office. Mr. Schmitt said that the City anticipates some type of re-development of this site in the future, especially in light of the Providence expansion.

A Driveway Spacing Waiver is required between this drive and Providence’s; 150 feet are required and 35 feet are proposed. No discussions with Vision Spa have yielded a shared driveway design. The Planning Commission may wish to discuss this with the Applicant.

The Engineering Review indicated there are minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

The Façade Review indicated that a Section Nine Waiver is necessary for the Applicant’s use of cement board siding (commonly known as Hardy Board). After speaking with the Façade Consultant, Mr. Schmitt has determined that there is no support for this product. The City has traditionally shied away from using siding products on office buildings.

The Fire Marshal has indicated that he would not be able to turn his truck around on this site. The Applicant has suggested that enough room can be provided for a three-point turn, and a northerly stub could be designed that will also be an assistance to that north parcel in the future. The Fire Marshal has noted that the building will be sprinklered.

Mr. Schmitt said that a driveway spacing waiver is not required for the distance between this drive and the Vision Spa drive because that drive is an emergency access only.

Lee Mammola addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of the Applicant. Mr. Harper Cunningham and Mr. James Halley were present for Remax 100. Mr. Mammola said this property was a difficult gem and they were willing to work with the City. He said that they focused on the safety issues. They have increased the first drive from a 24-foot width to a 30-foot measurement. They plan to increase the other drive from 24 feet to 28 feet. This will allow for more maneuverability. This will reduce the amount of green space, but as noted, two-thirds of the site will remain dormant.

The Applicant has been working on this design for nearly a year. One option was to relocate the pond further east. The bottom line was that Dr. Tilton, the City’s Wetland Consultant, somewhat ordered them to stay out of the wetland areas. That plan would have yielded more parking spaces.

Mr. Mammola said that they will not have to seek the waiver for the dumpster. This is an owner-occupied building and therefore the user of the site will not need as much parking as the Ordinance would call for, because of the nature of this business. Mr. Mammola said that the parking calculations in Novi have changed over the years. The most difficult parking ratio to meet is for the small building on the small site.

Mr. Mammola said the Façade Waiver is for the dormers on the side of the building. This design was meant to provide natural daylight in an area of the building designed for record storage. The dormer design requires a lightweight building material because it must sit on trusses. There are other materials, like metal panels or EIFS, that could be used, but these would present technical difficulties in designing their use. This is a maintenance and durability issue.

Mr. Mammola said that if the Planning Commission chooses to approve this plan, he would agree to move forward with their concept plan that addresses some of the problems on the Preliminary Site Plan plan, especially the parking lot area.

Chair Kocan asked if the Applicant could downsize the building. Mr. Mammola said that the Applicant originally asked for a 10,000 square foot building and now it is down to a 7,500 square foot building. Mr. Mammola said that parts of the building that were traditionally not counted when calculating parking spaces are now counted in that calculation. If the parking is added to this site, it will just be an encumbrance on the property.

Mr. Mammola said that there is a twenty foot greenbelt provided on Vision Spa. The effect of that design allows for the appearance of a 24-foot greenbelt between that property and this proposed plan. He has spoken with Vision Spa about a joint entrance. They have also discussed a dual rear access for secondary access. Vision Spa’s feeling is they are a new development and they don’t want their site looking patched.

No one from the audience wished to speak and no letters were received in response to the Public Notice. Chair Kocan closed the Public Hearing.

Member Sprague appreciated that the natural features were being salvaged. He asked whether the site constraints are due to the fact that so much of the site is natural. Mr. Schmitt responded that the width of this property is a problem. The Applicant has done a good job of working around that issue. Their concept plan also needs some waivers, but he agreed that some consideration should be given for the fact that the natural features are being preserved.

Mr. Schmitt said that a building on this site that did not require waivers would have to be around 4,000 to 5,000 square feet in size. The Fiscal Analysis assumed about 6,000-7,000 square feet per acre. Given the amount of usable space on this site, the Applicant is a little overbuilt. They do not need a basin, so when that occurs, an Applicant usually gets a little extra space. Mr. Schmitt felt that the biggest constraint on the property is its narrowness.

Member Sprague asked if there was a permanent easement on the back natural features. It is within the Planning Commission’s purview to discuss an easement, because it is a tradeoff for setback issues. Mr. Schmitt said that the preferable form would be a conservation easement. The Planning Commission can also require the Applicant to request the setback variance from the ZBA. If the Planning Commission grants it, there is a rational argument for tying the setback to a conservation argument.

Member Sprague asked if it would be feasible to build on the back two-thirds of the property, if an easement was not put in place. Mr. Schmitt said that the MDEQ would have a large say in that, given that the wetland is large and is connected to a system that would require an MDEQ permit. Mr. Schmitt said that with this project, it is not likely feasible, but if someone built on Grand River and needed extra setback, the use of this area would most definitely be considered.

Member Sprague asked the Applicant if he would be amenable to a conservation easement. Mr. Mammola said it hasn’t been considered at this time, but he said that it certainly would make sense with regard to the setback issue and subject to the fine print. This Applicant really has no intent to use that area.

Member Sprague asked how many employees are expected on this site. Mr. Mammola said there are about 24 total employees. Out of those, only five are full time employees that would report to this site. Closings are held on site. Mr. Mammola was satisfied that the redesign with 26 spaces is adequate.

Member Sprague asked Landscape Architect Lance Shipman to comment on the waiver requests. Mr. Shipman responded that the southerly landscape requirement includes a ten-foot setback in the front. That would allow room for the canopy trees. The Preliminary Site Plan proposal is for four feet and their concept proposal further reduces that number with their addition of parallel parking in that area. The canopy trees cannot be planted in a four-foot space, because the Ordinance requires that the trees be planted a minimum of four feet from the property line.

Mr. Shipman said that to the east, the property is adjacent to residential, but since that area is not being developed, Mr. Shipman assumed that the waiver subject to the natural features would be granted.

Member Sprague asked how Vision Spa felt about the four-foot provision on this site. Mr. Shipman responded that Vision Spa could redesign their site and their twenty-foot buffer could be reduced to ten feet. If the natural features are going to be preserved in the back of this site, Mr. Shipman said it appears that without granting this waiver the only way this site can be designed is with a smaller building. Mr. Shipman agreed that this is a narrow site to develop.

Member Sprague asked about the lack of berm on the north. Mr. Shipman said that the Ordinance requires the berm since the land is currently zoned residential. Mr. Shipman suggested a wall. The home is currently vacant. Member Sprague said that it doesn’t even make sense to put the wall up, and wondered if it made sense to stipulate the addition of a wall if a future homeowner on that site wanted it. Mr. Shipman said if the site was to be rezoned this wouldn’t be an issue. The Ordinance is designed to protect residents adjacent to non-residential. Member Sprague said that if the requirement is waived now, the City cannot go back and require this Applicant to add something. Mr. Shipman said that the City Attorney could weigh in on whether a stipulation could be formulated such that the wall would be required at the time of residential occupancy. City Attorney David Gillam said that theoretically that could be done, but in practicality, the use of that property could change a number of times over the years. He recommended dealing with the issue with some sort of finality at this time. Member Sprague asked if the Master Plan designation gives the Planning Commission enough support to waive the berm requirement. Mr. Gillam felt that was a reasonable basis on which to do so, especially in light of the comments made by Mr. Schmitt.

Member Sprague asked if the wetland complex was going to take in the stormwater. Civil Engineer Ben Croy said that he and ECT, the Wetland Consultant, are both looking for additional information, but it appears to be a favorable design.

Member Sprague asked if the Vision Spa gated access could be removed if these two properties worked on a dual access elsewhere. Mr. Schmitt said that would be favorable in the eyes of the City. The issue is between the two property owners. To his knowledge, the two parties are rather far apart on the terms of an agreement along that line – either a dual boulevard entrance or a dual secondary access point. Mr. Mammola discussed this with the Fire Marshal and his opinion was that cross access between these sites would allow for the removal of Vision Spa’s gated access. A cross access might result in a loss of two Remax parking spaces. It might also reduce the loading area, which is currently designed for sixty feet. The Applicant could ask for a greater waiver for the parking and loading area, as Mr. Mammola noted that this type of use rarely accommodates large trucks.

Member Sprague asked if cross access to the northerly property would result in a loss of parking spaces. Mr. Mammola said no. The access could be made available for connection at a northerly point, but the other solution seems to be more logical, given the width of the area.

Mr. Schmitt asked to comment on the secondary access. If the Applicant would like to stub to the north, the Planning Department would ask that this become a requirement of the site plan. When the stub is deferred, it ends up that the plan doesn’t provide the stub. If they are willing to put this stub in, the Planning Commission should make it a condition in the motion.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Member Avdoulos said that he was familiar with the product that the Applicant has proposed for the dormers. The cement board siding is relatively new and is coming on strong. It has good performance. It is basically insect and termite proof. It has an excellent fire rating. It holds painting far better than wood does – it will hold paint for about ten years. It is not as thermally efficient, but given the size of the area for which the material is proposed, Member Avdoulos thought the request was appropriate. He recommended that a Section Nine Waiver be added to the motion. The maker and seconder of the motion agreed.

Member Avdoulos said the building is designed with 24 offices, one conference room, one meeting room, a reception area and a work area. There will be five full time employees. With 24 offices, Member Avdoulos wondered if they would ever be utilized at the same time. Mr. Mammola said this was the home base for the agents; they keep their files in this location. For the most part the agents do not "work" out of this office and it would be highly unusual for all the agents, or even 50% of them, to be at the office at the same time.

Member Avdoulos said that there will be many cars that would be onsite for a closing. He said that sometimes a building owner can send an affidavit in and explain why their parking needs are met by a smaller lot. Member Avdoulos did not know what else could be done for this site, as it is completely designed. Member Avdoulos asked if the Applicant considered building up and reducing the footprint. Mr. Mammola looked at a number of options, and they were viable when they were allowed to encroach into the wetland area. When a second story is considered, there has to be elevators, two stairways, etc. Those items added an additional dimensional burden to the site that took up more footprint than expected. The site became less efficient. They even tried using cantilevers to build over the parking lot, but to no avail.

Member Avdoulos said that there are stairs that lead to the storage area, so that is what he was considering. He said that the Applicant could go to Lansing and get a waiver for the elevator. Mr. Mammola said that getting a waiver on a new building is nearly impossible. Member Avdoulos understood these things but wanted to make sure the discussion of them was covered.

Mr. Mammola said that there is a close alignment of Remax and Vision Spa - about ten feet. He did not think that people driving down Beck Road would notice the difference. Member Avdoulos said that it would be nice to have a consistency in the frontal plain. It would look like the buildings are working together.

Member Avdoulos thought that the Applicant had addressed a majority of concerns listed in the reviews. He asked if the Fire Marshal had seen the concept plan. Mr. Mammola said that they tried to meet in the last few days, but the Fire Marshal has just been too busy. They have talked over the phone. Mr. Mammola said that they are planning to move forward with the alternative plan.

Mr. Schmitt said that a new comment being provided to the Applicant is about their connecting up to the sidewalk. This will allow the patrons of this building to walk freely to neighboring sites. This request came from the Traffic Consultant.

Member Avdoulos supported the motion.

Member Cassis said that the Planning Commission has considered many difficult parcels over the years. He said the Planning Commission has always tried to work with the Applicant on these difficult parcels. Member Cassis did not believe there was adequate parking on this site. He understood why the Applicant needed as much as 10,000 square feet – they will need storage space, for example. He believed that at least half of the agents should be on site at any given time. There will be title people. There will be two parties coming for a closing. He thought that the building was short on square footage and on parking. He said this was a difficult lot. The Applicant has stayed away from the natural features and he should be rewarded for that. The Planning Commission has seen Applicants try to encroach on natural features. This is one of the best architects because he lives here and has developed here. He understands Novi’s needs. He has demonstrated that in his design for this site. Member Cassis said that in spite of his feelings, he was going to support the motions.

Mr. Shipman asked for clarification on the motion. To ensure that the motion was not misunderstood as a complete waiver of parking lot landscape, he asked that the statement, "The Applicant continuing to work on the parking lot landscaping design" be added to the motion. The parking lot setback should be defined with a width so that there is no misunderstanding on that issue. He suggested that, "A minimum four-foot of parking lot setback in consideration of proposed alternative proposed concept plan dated June 17, 2005" be added to the motion. Mr. Shipman also asked the comment "adjacent to residential" include the adjacency to Central Park Estates as well. The maker and the seconder of the motion agreed to all inclusions.

Mr. Schmitt said that the four-foot setback is only one area along the south property line, adjacent to what is shown as parallel parking. On the conceptual plan it is spread throughout. There are a couple of more areas that will be covered by this waiver on the most recent plan as compared to the Preliminary Site Plan. Mr. Schmitt said that the newer plan is superior; he just wanted the Planning Commission to be aware of this. Chair Kocan wanted the record to reflect that this stipulation is in consideration of the proposed alternative concept plan of June 17, 2005.

Chair Kocan asked if a screenwall and landscaping were supposed to be requested for the area between the subject property and the northerly residential site. Mr. Shipman responded that it was an option available, but he did believe there was a clear resolution among the Planning Commission members regarding that request. The motion could be for a wall, or it could be a full waiver.

Chair Kocan said that the problem with the parking deficiency is that a future tenant of that building will need the appropriate amount of parking. She knew the site was narrow, and that two-thirds of the site would be preserved. She said that when a parcel is bought there is a risk, and the City has to allow reasonable development. She was not sure whether she supported the motion.

Member Cassis asked if there was a way to add three or four more parking spaces to the site, perhaps by giving a landscape waiver. He said that since over half the lot is wooded, that must be considered. Mr. Mammola said that two spaces could replace a landscaped island. One or two spaces would be placed where a buffer is currently proposed. The sixty-foot long loading area could yield another parking space. Member Cassis recommended that the Applicant seek the loading zone variance. Mr. Schmitt said that the Applicant can seek the variance, which would yield possibly two more parking spaces. The configuration of the parallel parking along the southerly property line could be reviewed. The location of the dumpster could be reconsidered. The Planning Department would not be in favor of removing the landscaped island. He thought that the removal of the island would require a variance from the Design and Construction Standards, which is granted by City Council. Member Cassis asked the Planning Commission if they would agree to give the Applicant and the Planning Department some leeway on the design for the Final Site Plan submittal.

Member Pehrson felt that the issue of a ZBA variance for parking spaces was already part of the motion, and that the question was, how big would the variance request be? Mr. Schmitt agreed, and he personally would support the variance for the loading zone. He told them that they did not have to weigh in on this request if they preferred not to; the Applicant still had the right to go to the ZBA and request the variance. He did think it was appropriate for them to weigh in, however. Mr. Gillam agreed that the Planning Commission should weigh in, to signify their interest in having the parking maximized on this site.

Member Pehrson wished to add to the motion, "A ZBA variance for the removal of the loading zone to allow for additional parking." Mr. Gillam added that if a design did not work out, the Applicant could just submit a plan with the loading zone. Member Wrobel agreed to the additional language.

ROLL CALL VOTE ON REMAX 100, SP05-20 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN MOTION MADE BY MEMBER PEHRSON AND SECONDED BY MEMBER WROBEL:

In the matter of the request of Crystal Halley for Remax 100, SP05-20, motion to approve the Preliminary Site Plan subject to: 1) A ZBA variance for the lack of parking spaces on the site (34 spaces required vs. 23 proposed); 2) A Planning Commission Waiver for the lack of parking lot setback due to additional setbacks which are provided on the site, in conjunction with a Conservation Easement to be developed by the City to protect the remaining two-thirds of the property (northern yard - 15 feet required vs. 12 feet proposed and southern side yard - ten feet required vs. four feet proposed); 3) A Planning Commission Waiver for the lack of parking lot landscaping; 4) A Planning Commission Waiver for the lack of canopy trees along the southern edge of the parking lot; 5) A Planning Commission Waiver for the lack of a berm adjacent to residentially zoned northern property line and along Central Park Estates; 6) A Planning Commission Opposite Side Driveway Spacing Waiver (150 feet required vs. 35 feet proposed); 7) A redesign to provide a turnaround at the end of the dead-end driveway and/or subject to the comments of the Fire Marshal’s approval of the concept plan for the three-point turnaround; 8) A stub made for cross access to the north of the property; 9) The Applicant working with Vision Spa to obtain final resolution for the southernmost cross access with the potential to remove the gated access at Vision Spa; 10) The comments in the Staff and Consultant reviews; 11) A Section Nine Waiver; 12) The Applicant continuing to work on the parking lot landscaping design; 13) A minimum four-foot of parking lot setback in consideration of proposed alternative proposed concept plan dated June 17, 2005; and 14) A ZBA variance for the removal of the loading zone to allow for additional parking; for the reason that the plan meets the intent of the Master Plan.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Cunningham Limp for Preliminary Site Plan, Site Condominium, Woodland Permit, Wetland Permit, and Storm Water Management Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 16, on the south side of Twelve Mile between Taft and Beck roads in the OST, Planned Office Service Technology District. The Applicant is proposing to construct two medical office buildings totaling 105,000 square feet. The subject property is approximately 12.53 acres.

Transcriber’s Note: The Applicant requested a name change on this project after this Public Hearing was held. The new name for this project is Keystone Medical Center.

Planner Tim Schmitt located the property on a photo. The parcel is irregularly shaped. The Planning Commission has reviewed two rezoning requests on this site. The main square portion of the site was rezoned to OST. The southeast leg of the site was eventually rezoned to OST as well. These were the first properties to be zoned OST in the Twelve Mile corridor. The entire south side of this corridor is master planned for Office. To the north the area is master planned for Light Industrial uses. Also to the north is Twelve Mile. The West Park Drive and Twelve Mile intersection is located at the northwest corner of the property. To the east and west there are single family homes on fairly large lots, zoned R-A. To the north is the future Novi Corporate Campus property – the Planning Commission recently approved its road and utilities plan; it is zoned I-1 and further north it is zoned I-2. To the south is the Edison ITC corridor, zoned R-A, and I-96.

Mr. Schmitt said that there are wetlands along the westerly edge of the property. The majority of the regulated woodlands on the property are on the southeastern leg of the site.

Mr. Schmitt said that the Applicant is proposing to build 105,000 square feet of office space. At this time there is no sewer service along Twelve Mile. The Applicant proposes to pull sewer from Taft Road, near I-96, and bring it through the ITC Corridor to the southern portion of the site. All of the properties along Twelve Mile would be served by this sewer, except for one property that will likely be provided with an easement.

The Planning Review indicated that a Planning Commission Waiver is necessary for the specific loading zone requirements which are somewhat strict, in anticipation of trucks for high tech users. In this case, the loading zones are provided in the rear of the buildings, and they are fairly well screened by landscaping and topography.

Mr. Schmitt said that the Applicant is proposing a mobile MRI unit, and he indicated where the unit would be located on this site. This is becoming a common proposal. The Planning Commission recently approved one for the Meadowbrook Medical Center. In this case, the MRI unit does not take up parking spaces and does not impede the traffic flow. It is in a relatively appropriate position. It is screened from Twelve Mile. It will function as a semi-permanent appendage to the building.

The Wetland Review indicated that there are minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. The Planning Commission should discuss a conservation easement for the portions of the southern triangle. The Planning Commission members were provided with a map from the Woodland Consultant outlining the area for consideration. The Applicant should also address this at greater length than their response letter did.

The Landscape Review indicated items that need to be discussed. The proposed islands on the site are only nine feet wide and should be at least ten feet. Because this is the only Office property at this time, berms are necessary along all the adjacent residential properties. Along the western property line, there are wetlands being preserved, and the Planning Department would support a berm waiver. To the south is the ITC Corridor. The Planning Commission should discuss the visibility of this project from I-96. The ITC Corridor is relatively unvegetated in this area. A Planning Commission Waiver is technically required along the north portion of the southeast leg. Given the topography and natural woodlands, it only seems natural to waive the berm and save the trees.

Mr. Schmitt said that the Planning Commission should discuss the possible waiver for a berm along the property line where a singe family residence stands. The property will likely see redevelopment in the future. The Planning Commission might recall having a meeting with these property owners, and no clear cut decision was made by those property owners on how they would proceed with the rezoning of their properties. Mr. Schmitt said that ultimately those rezonings will probably be brought forward by developers like Cunningham Limp.

Mr. Schmitt said that an Opposite Side Driveway Spacing Waiver is necessary for the easternmost driveway – two hundred feet are required and 115 feet are proposed. There is an existing residence that creates the need for this waiver. The driveway is right-in/right-out. If the residence is redeveloped, which is likely, that property will have the right to a curb cut, and this would be the likely location for this site as the driveway is already established. Taking that into account, the Planning Department wished to bring this information to the attention of the Planning Commission.

The Engineering Review and the Fire Department Review indicated there are minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. The Façade Review indicated that the plan is in full compliance.

Mr. Schmitt said that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee strongly advocated for a frontage road or rear access road in this area during the Master Plan review process. The envisioned frontage road would come along the edge of this property and connect at the intersection of West Park Drive. Potentially, it would have run along the back end of these properties. First and foremost, there is a large wetland along the eastern edge of this property that the Applicant is proposing to maintain. Secondly, the Planning Commission should consider whether a frontage road is really necessary, given the limited number of parcels that would benefit from it. A frontage road would serve four parcels. This is different from Grand River, where lot splits have resulted in sixty-foot wide parcels. In this case, the Applicant is providing a curb cut at the West Park Drive intersection. A secondary right-in/right-out curb cut will be at the far eastern end of the property. There will be a secondary access stub to the east, which will alleviate secondary access concerns for that adjacent property. In turn, that Applicant will also be asked to do the same. The Planning Department looked at this situation at length. The Applicant prepared a traffic study to help ascertain what the impacts of this property might be. The Planning Commission should discuss this concept of the access road.

Randy DeReuter of Cunningham Limp addressed the Planning Commission. He introduced Scott Marcus of RSM Development and Jim Butler, the engineering consultant. This plan is the product of several meetings with the City Staff. He believed that this building represents what the City was looking for. He said that this project was important because it sets the benchmark for the change in this corridor. Their feedback has been positive, even in the current market conditions.

Mr. DeReuter said this OST project was important for the City’s tax base. The building is in compliance with the Ordinance. It is masonry, glass and limestone. The site design respected the quality wetlands. These medical office uses have been designed so that the parking is amply distributed around the site. Their intent is to phase the project. The first phase will be the northernmost building, representing 60,000 square feet. The second phase will be the 45,000 square foot southerly building.

Mr. DeReuter offered to answer any questions relating to the project and to the waivers.

Chair Kocan asked Mr. DeReuter to comment on the leg of the property that has been discussed for a conservation easement. He responded that he would prefer to defer that decision; their plans are unclear at this point in time as to what they would like to do with that property. Anything that they do propose for that leg would have to come before the Planning Commission in the future. Chair Kocan said the Planning Commission would discuss this with the City Attorney because whatever is decided on for this land would impact future surrounding sites.

Chair Kocan opened the floor up for public comment:

Ed Bozian, property owner to the east: Stated that his elderly brother and sister live in the house, though this family believes that ultimately the property will be redeveloped with a commercial purpose. He commended the Applicant for an attractive building. The Applicant has spoken at length with this family. Their concerns are that an easement be made available at the northeast corner of this site for a future sewer hook-up, security issues relating to a building that is not occupied at night and the lack of a berm between these sites, and the potential for flooding on his site because the north culvert is higher than the south end and the gulley gets overgrown. On two occasions they have been flooded out – when a watermain broke and when Twelve Mile was engineered and the wetland was affected. He said his property does handle its own runoff. If this Applicant flattens the grade, it could affect the water runoff. Mr. Bozian understood that the property north is extending their storm sewer line but believes that there is a still a problem because the culvert is still a foot higher on the north end. He requested a re-design of the culvert, even if it meant that the ditch would always hold a foot of water.

Member Pehrson read the correspondence into the record:

Girolamo Grillo, 46777 Twelve Mile: Approved of the project.

Robert Bowman, 30180 Orchard Lake Road, Ste. 200, Farmington Hills: Reiterated the need for easements to allow the Marleon (Bozian) and Karagosian properties access to the sewer system.

Chair Kocan closed the Public Hearing.

Member Cassis said this was a nice development. He asked about the little southeast leg. Mr. Marcus responded that the ITC did not need that land and therefore RSM bought the property. They also bought the parcel contiguous to the south. They would love to acquire all of the parcels in the area, but he said that thought was premature. He did not wish to place a conservation easement on this leg, as it might hinder future plans.

Member Cassis asked Civil Engineer Ben Croy to comment on the drainage concerns. Mr. Croy said that there is a drainage issue in this area, and he understood the neighbor’s concern for the area being overcharged. Mr. Croy was comfortable that there were multiple solutions – piping to the Twelve Mile culvert, channelizing, etc. The final outcome will not provide further flooding on this neighbor’s property. Mr. DeReuter said that they are sensitive to this issue, and he believes that the final engineering will resolve the problem. He said that the excess dirt can be used to improve the grading, and that only a quarter of an acre drains in the direction of this neighbor. The storm sewer pipes have been upsized.

Member Cassis asked what would be a good screening solution between the subject property and the neighbor. Landscape Architect Lance Shipman said that some grade work is being done to the dramatically sloped land. The front portion of the land will have a retaining wall. This Applicant placed the retaining wall fifteen feet off of the property line, which alleviates a burden on the neighbor, provides landscaping room and looks nicer. The neighbor’s property is higher in the rear portion of the site, which will be addressed with landscaping. The berm waiver has been requested, and Mr. Shipman believed that the Applicant was working on the most appropriate design for the area. Member Cassis was encouraged by the reputation of Cunningham Limp and therefore the anticipated outcome of this design. He supported the project.

Member Pehrson asked if there was an intention to split the property. Mr. DeReuter said the property was designed to be a two-unit condominium.

Member Pehrson asked City Attorney David Gillam how the City could protect itself with regard to the southeast leg. Mr. Shipman responded that the Ordinance lists a requirement of a permanent preservation easement for properties adjacent to residential, in exchange for a berm waiver. This may not encompass the entire triangle, but at a minimum it would cover the land associated with a berm, and whatever is deemed adequate for noise attenuation. Depending on the density of the woods and other factors, Mr. Shipman said that the minimum width of the easement would be 32 feet.

Member Pehrson asked about the property facing I-96. Mr. Shipman explained that the Edison Corridor is zoned R-A, though the use of the property is not residential. The Planning Department’s concern is whether the parking lot will be visible from I-96. The Applicant has verbally commented on his willingness to address this, the Planning Department would like this commitment provided in a more concrete fashion. Mr. DeReuter said that they have a section through that property line, and they understand that the land is in fact lower than the adjoining property in that area. More information can be provided after final engineering. The information was provided to the City.

Member Pehrson asked Mr. Shipman if he was happy with the east side of the property. Mr. Shipman responded that the Applicant has done everything that the Ordinance would typically require. They have provided the thirty-foot setback and their letter indicates they will provide landscaping to address the screening and noise attenuation requirements. There is a grade issue that prevents them from providing the berm.

Member Pehrson asked Traffic Consultant Steve Dearing to comment on the accessory drive. Mr. Dearing responded that he was not involved with the Master Plan or the Thoroughfare Plan. Within the context of access management principles, he believed that cross access to the east and due diligence in ensuring cross access to the other adjacent sites fulfills the intent of a service drive. There should not be any particular reason why the City couldn’t enforce the one driveway approach on the succeeding properties. The access stub is shown on the plan and the Applicant intends to provide it.

Member Pehrson asked Mr. Schmitt to comment on the parking. Mr. Schmitt replied that the concept is not really shared parking, but the placement of the large landscaped island creates what appears to be a deficiency of approximately eleven spaces for the one building. The condominium documents will address this. There is not technically a split and there is a Master Deed for the property, so this parking arrangement is not a problem. Mr. Dearing agreed, and said that the uses are compatible and the issue is really the allocation and proximity of the parking.

Member Pehrson asked Mr. Dearing to comment on the sidewalk issue. Mr. Dearing responded that the City should always encourage pedestrian walkways, even if it’s just for the employees who wish to take a walk on their lunch hour. Mr. DeReuter said that they will provide an access to Twelve Mile, and they will sit down with the City to discuss this matter. Mr. Schmitt said that there is a solution out there.

Member Sprague asked whether anyone has come forward to discuss rezoning other parcels in this area. Mr. Schmitt was not aware of anyone coming forward to do so. He did not think there was any movement on a City-initiated rezoning either.

Member Sprague asked whether this project would only have three curb cuts, and whether any other project would require a driveway spacing waiver. Mr. Schmitt responded that there are probably three other properties between this property and Taft Road, and the last property could cut off Taft. At minimum, there will be three curb cuts. None of them would create a concern for distance, especially because this property is proposing a right-in/right-out on their easternmost curb cut.

Member Sprague asked if the southeast leg of the site was used in building size calculations. Mr. Schmitt said that the Ordinance does not give maximum lot coverage standards. Each site is designed based on its conformance to setbacks, parking, landscaping, etc. That leg only helped its parking lot setback to the west.

Member Sprague asked if the Applicant could place a berm instead of the conservation easement. Mr. Schmitt said that the Applicant could do so. Ultimately the property is zoned OST. If the neighboring property is rezoned from residential it would be different. If this tail was to be cut off and joined with another property, that could be done. The drawback that Mr. Schmitt saw was for the grading. The contours vary across the property. If there was a conservation easement and the land was combined with a different property, the setback is still from the property line. If the land is in an easement, the setbacks are still measured from the same place. The Applicant still can’t build in the first twenty feet, it’s just a matter of whether the Applicant can meet the grades otherwise. He didn’t see what the difficulty would be in placing the easement on that property.

Member Sprague asked if the Applicant had a Certificate of Need for the MRI. Mr. DeReuter said that the group of neurosurgeons that will be housed in this building are responsible for procuring that. This MRI will ultimately be relocated from the temporary structure to inside the building. Member Sprague asked if the City’s Ordinance regulated the placement of mobile MRI units; Mr. Schmitt responded that there is no language regarding MRI units. Typically they have been considered accessory to a medical building. The Planning Department reviews how the site will function when the MRI unit is in place and when it is not in place. They review whether moving it will impede traffic or whether it takes up required parking spaces. Member Sprague asked that the appropriate committee consider whether Ordinance language should be prepared that would regulate these MRI units, rather than having them reviewed from six different directions in the site plan review process, which seemed to concentrate on the access issues and not appearance and conformity.

Member Avdoulos asked for comment on the landscaped islands. Lance Shipman explained that the 4.5 foot radius provides a nine-foot island, and the Applicant intends to make those ten-foot islands.

Member Avdoulos asked about the black cherry trees that have been suggested for historical tree designation. They measure 36 inches dbh. They are near the wetland in the southwest corner. Mr. DeReuter said that he could not comment on the trees until he knew more about their location. Member Avdoulos thought it was a nice and unique feature of the site.

Member Avdoulos said that the Applicant made two comments in his response letter regarding wetlands. The Applicant has agreed to provide a cost estimate. The Applicant has agreed to place a conservation easement on the wetland. Dr. John Freeland, wetland consultant, told Member Avdoulos that the Applicant has been asked to provide additional information on the water budget with regard to the wetland on the west side. That wetland is partially forested and they had concerns about their drowning.

Member Avdoulos thought this was a good project and he liked that it aligned with West Park Drive to create more of an intersection. The wetlands have been skirted and the Applicant has taken advantage of the natural setting. The placement of the buildings is good. There is a lot of cut and fill because of the topography, and he thought that it had been handled appropriately. He liked the landscaped island that separates the two buildings. The architectural appearance is good and is a nice addition to this corridor, especially at this intersection.

Mr. Shipman said that the black cherry trees locations have been determined. One is located in the western portion of the site but south of the property line. The other tree is in the western portion of the triangular piece, and it appears to be off-site. DTE retains the trimming easement within that area. He did not know if the City would have the ability to place any type of protection on these trees. The lines are significantly far away and no trimming is anticipated. If a second line was ever brought through this DTE area, these trees may fall in line with that placement.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Gutman:

In the matter of the request of Cunningham Limp for Spectrum Professional Office Centre, SP05-19A, motion to grant approval of the Preliminary Site Plan and Site Condominium subject to: 1) A Planning Commission Opposite Side Driveway Spacing Waiver for the easternmost driveway and residential driveway on north side of Twelve Mile (200 feet required vs. 115 feet proposed); 2) A Planning Commission Waiver for lack of a berm adjacent to residentially zoned property in the western yard; 3) A Planning Commission Waiver for lack of a berm adjacent to residentially zoned property in the southern yard; 4) A Planning Commission Waiver for lack of berm adjacent to residentially zoned property in the northeastern yard; 5) A Planning Commission Waiver for lack of berm adjacent to residentially zoned property in the eastern yard; 6) A Planning Commission Waiver for specific loading zone screening requirements; 7) The Applicant meeting the ROW berming requirements; 8) The Applicant providing a minimum a minimum width of ten feet in all parking landscaping islands; 9) The Applicant working with the City to connect the sidewalk to Twelve Mile; 10) The comments and conditions in the Staff and Consultant reviews; for the reason that the plan meets the intent of the Ordinance.

Chair Kocan understood that the southern yard screening may also need a hedgerow. Mr. Shipman said that in order for the Applicant to receive this waiver, they must meet certain provisions. One such provision is that effective screening and noise attenuation are achieved. Those are requirements. The City wants to ensure that the parking was screened from the I-96 corridor. The triangular piece is also subject to the conditions in the Ordinance, one of which is the permanent preservation easement being put into place in lieu of the berm. He wanted to ensure that the Planning Commission and the Applicant understood these to be conditions of those waivers.

Chair Kocan asked if the Applicant can berm that triangular piece if they chose not to provide a conservation easement. Mr. Shipman said that the Applicant has two choices. They can provide the berm or easement, or they can pursue a variance from the ZBA. Chair Kocan wished to have an answer to this question.

Chair Kocan also asked whether there will be plantings and possibly a dense hedge along the eastern yard. Mr. DeReuter said that the conservation easement could hamper this Applicant’s possible future procurement of the easterly site. They would agree to the easement as long as the property remains residential. He asked if there was a manner in which to write this stipulation as such.

Member Lipski said that it would be appropriate to state the stipulation as the Applicant has suggested, namely, that, "A Conservation Easement being written to allow a disposition of the easement upon a use or zoning change from residential." Member Lipski said that this restriction would be recorded with the Register of Deeds and would expire with the change. City Attorney David Gillam said that the easement could be written as such that the City would have the right to discharge or release the easement at some point in time in the future if the zoning on the property changed. The easement is on behalf of the City, for purposes of preservation. Member Avdoulos and Member Gutman agreed to the additional language. Mr. DeReuter asked whether the language would be written such that the release was at the City’s option. Mr. DeReuter asked that the release be automatic if the residential use is vacated. City Attorney said it could be automatic, but it still will require action by City Council. Mr. Gillam said he did not have a problem with the stipulation not being discretionary, the City can be obligated to release the easement, but City Council must perform the discharge. Member Lipski stated he felt that the Applicant and the City Attorney were in agreement. Chair Kocan said that the Applicant will have the opportunity to review the easement before he signs it.

Chair Kocan said that the dumpster is in the location of the cross access. She said that it poses a problem because of its visibility. Traffic Consultant Steve Dearing said that when the property next door develops that cross access must be available; at this time it does not pose a problem. Mr. Dearing suggested that the Applicant just put it a little further away from this future intersection. Chair Kocan confirmed with the Applicant that he would address that issue.

Member Cassis asked about the sanitary sewer easement requested for the adjacent properties. Mr. DeReuter said that the issue is not granting the easement; they would like the opportunity to pursue reasonable compensation for the investment they are putting into bringing the sewer from Taft Road. He did not think that was unreasonable. Mr. Gillam said that the Planning Commission cannot impose a condition on this approval with the Applicant being forced to provide an easement to an adjacent site. The Planning Commission can express their desire for the Applicant to work with the adjacent property owner to provide access to the sewer line. It is not a hard and fast condition of the approval.

Member Cassis asked if the City was eventually going to extend the sewer via a Special Assessment District. Civil Engineer Ben Croy said that the Applicant is taking an alternative route from the City’s Master Plan, which takes the line up Taft and along Twelve Mile, which would serve all of those parcels. This alternative plan has advantages. He will require this Applicant to provide access to all parcels, which includes two parcels that are blocked by parcel boundaries. Their option is to follow the Master Plan or take this alternative route knowing they must provide access to these other two parcels. This will be a part of his Final Site Plan approval. Member Cassis asked the Applicant to be aware of that situation.

In the matter of the request of Cunningham Limp for Spectrum Professional Office Centre, SP05-19A, motion to grant approval of the Preliminary Site Plan and Site Condominium subject to: 1) A Planning Commission Opposite Side Driveway Spacing Waiver for the easternmost driveway and residential driveway on north side of Twelve Mile (200 feet required vs. 115 feet proposed); 2) A Planning Commission Waiver for lack of a berm adjacent to residentially zoned property in the western yard; 3) A Planning Commission Waiver for lack of a berm adjacent to residentially zoned property in the southern yard; 4) A Planning Commission Waiver for lack of berm adjacent to residentially zoned property in the northeastern yard; 5) A Planning Commission Waiver for lack of berm adjacent to residentially zoned property in the eastern yard; 6) A Planning Commission Waiver for specific loading zone screening requirements; 7) The Applicant meeting the ROW berming requirements; 8) The Applicant providing a minimum a minimum width of ten feet in all parking landscaping islands; 9) The Applicant working with the City to connect the sidewalk to Twelve Mile; 10) The comments and conditions in the Staff and Consultant reviews; and 11) A Conservation Easement being written to allow a disposition of the easement upon a use or zoning change from residential; for the reason that the plan meets the intent of the Ordinance.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Sprague:

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Gutman:

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Gutman:

Chair Kocan confirmed with Civil Engineer Ben Croy that although he had numerous concerns about the submitted Stormwater plan, he was comfortable in this design moving forward. He commented that the runoff must be self-contained on their own site, and the flow must be controlled once it leaves the property.

The Public Hearing was opened for Planning Commission’s recommendation to City Council to amend the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance in order to amend the RUD and PD provisions to allow for City Council modifications or deviations from Zoning Ordinance standards.

Planner Tim Schmitt told the Planning Commission that many of the changes are grammatical in nature. Additionally, a change is proposed to allow City Council the ability to deviate from the Ordinance standards at their discretion. The new RUD language adds a description of what can and cannot be imposed by the City Council. It gives specific conditions under which these provisions would be added to an RUD or PD agreement. These conditions are discussed at length. The main focus of the change puts the jurisdiction of Ordinance deviations for RUDs and PDs in the hands of City Council.

Chair Kocan closed the Public Hearing after determining that no one wished to address the Planning Commission and there was no correspondence.

Chair Kocan asked about an issue found on page nine of the final version. She noted that "g" stated that, "…the cost of installing and maintaining streets… and the necessary utilities has been assured by a means satisfactory to the Planning Commission." She asked if this pertains to the cost of installing and maintaining the utilities, or are these two separate thoughts that should be two separate bullets. Mr. Schmitt responded that the reference is to streets and utilities, and he thought the reason they were combined is generally, both fall under the category of infrastructure. There is a sense that the two go hand in hand in terms of construction. Putting them together did make a certain amount of sense. Mr. Schmitt said that they could easily be split up if that is the Planning Commission’s desire.

Chair Kocan said that she may consider the language and if she had any additional suggestions she would let the Planning Department know. She said she had already submitted some grammatical changes. She felt the proposed language fulfilled what the City Council was trying to achieve. An RUD and a PD are contracts and City Council didn’t want to slow the process down by making the Applicant request variances from the ZBA.

Member Pehrson asked where an issue would go if it could not be ironed out. City Attorney David Gillam responded that it would go before Circuit Court. Mr. Gillam continued that the proposed changes are consistent with what an RUD and a PD are really meant to be. The decision making authority shouldn’t be parceled out between City Council, the elected and governing body of the City, and the ZBA, which is really an independent body. These changes invest all of the authority with City Council, where it should be for RUD and PD agreements.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

Member Sprague confirmed that this was a motion to recommend approval to City Council.

Member Avdoulos confirmed that this is only one text amendment for both the RUD and the PD.

Member Cassis asked whether any further thought has been given to updating the Ordinance in whole. Director of Planning Barbara McBeth responded that the updates are provided by the City Clerk, and if any Planning Commission member did not think their book was current, the Planning Department could get them the updates. Member Cassis said that there have been quite a few changes since he became a Planning Commission member. Ms. McBeth said that the City Clerk sends out the Ordinance updates, but she would get Member Cassis a new Ordinance book if he thought that would be helpful.

Chair Kocan said that with regard to the entire Ordinance update, there is no money in the budget for that undertaking.

Moved by Member Sprague, seconded by Member Gutman:

There were no Consent Agenda Removals.

There were no Matters for Discussion.

Chair Kocan said that the Mayor Lou Csordas was out of town and she believed that the nominations of three names to the Planning Commission would occur at the July 11, 2005 City Council meeting. The current members whose terms are expiring (John Avdoulos, Victor Cassis and Lowell Sprague) traditionally continue in their roles until the new members have been identified.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Moved by Member Gutman:

The meeting adjourned at 12:56 a.m.

MON 07/04/05 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

MON 07/11/05 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 07/12/05 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

WED 07/13/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 07/18/05 IMPLEMENTATION MEETING 6:00 PM

MON 07/25/05 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 07/27/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

TUE 08/02/05 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

MON 08/08/05 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 08/10/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

Transcribed by Jane L. Schimpf, July 19, 2005 Signature on File

Date Approved: July 27, 2005 Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date