|View Agenda for this meeting
View Action Summary for this meeting
Wednesday,June 24,2009 | 7PM
Council Chambers|NoviCivicCenter|45175 W. TenMile
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at or about 7:00PM.
Present: Members David Baratta, Victor Cassis, Andy Gutman, Michael Lynch, Mark Pehrson
Absent: Member David Greco (excused), Brian Larson (excused), Michael Meyer (excused), Leland Prince (excused)
Also Present: Kristen Kapelanski, Planner; Jana Pritchard, Planner; Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant; Tom Schultz, City Attorney
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Member Greco led the meeting attendees in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Moved by Member Cassis, seconded by Member Gutman.
VOICE VOTE ON THE AGENDA APPROVAL, MOTION MADE BY CASSIS AND SECONDED BY MEMBER GUTMAN:
A motion to approve the June 24, 2009 Planning Commission Agenda. Motion carried 5-0.
No one from the audience wished to speak.
There was no Correspondence to share.
There were no Committee Reports.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPUTY DIRECTOR REPORT
Kristen Kapelanski stated that she had just one thing to report this evening. At the June 15, 2009 meeting the City Council approved the 2nd Reading of the Sign Ordinance.
CONSENT AGENDA - REMOVALS AND APPROVAL
No Consent Agenda.
Kristen Kapelanski, Planner stated that 29 Park, proposed Nightclub at Novi Main Street should be moved from the Consent Agenda to Matters for Consideration. Chairperson Pehrson stated, let the record show that 29 Park proposed Nightclub at Novi Main Street be moved to Matters for Consideration.
MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
1. 29 PARK, PROPOSED NIGHTCLUB AT NOVI MAIN STREET DEVELOPMENT, SP09-11B
Consideration of the request of 29 Park, Inc., for a recommendation to City Council for Preliminary Site Plan and Shared Parking Study approval. The subject property is located in Section 23, south of Grand River Avenue and east of Novi Road, in the TC-1, Town Center District. The applicant is proposing to occupy approximately 10,000 square feet of vacant space at the existing Novi Main Street development located at 43155 Main Street.
Planner Kapelanski stated that the applicant is proposing to occupy 10,000 square feet of vacant space at the corner of Main St. and Market St. The proposed nightclub would move into the space formerly occupied by Steak on Main and the Coffee Trader. The subject property is zoned TC-1 (Town Center District) and surrounded by TC zoning in all directions. Parking was a significant issue in the original Main Street approval, because all the various uses were to share the parking.
Under Section 2505.8 of the Ordinance, which is part of the Off-Street Parking Standards, the City Council after a recommendation from the Planning Commission is given the authority to reduce the number of parking spaces required. This is based upon acceptance of a Shared Parking Study demonstrating how the parking can effectively function on-site.
The original approval of the Main Street plan included a reduction in the number of otherwise required spaces, based on the City Council’s approval of a Shared Parking Study showing a certain mix of uses. This Study included all parking areas surrounding the Main Street buildings and the underground parking located beneath the Atrium Building, all of which now exist. So, that would now include the parking that is under the building currently in question, as well as the parking behind there, and all the way up to Andiamos.
Although it was originally approved as a single site development, the Main Street area now has four separate property owners. All have access to the existing parking lots based on the Shared Parking Agreements in place. Restaurant uses were originally anticipated in the building areas where the nightclub is now proposed.
Given the fact that the applicant is now proposing a more intense nightclub use in terms of parking requirements than what was originally anticipated, the Shared Parking Study had to be updated, as a means of determining if sufficient parking for the proposed new use could be provided.
The applicant was previously before this Commission in May, 2009. The Commission chose to table the matter at that meeting until additional information could be provided regarding some assertions made in the Shared Parking Study, including the use of off-site valet parking. Since that time, the applicant has submitted detailed floor plans to the Building Division. The Building Division has determined the maximum occupancy load to be approximately 681 people, which is far less than the originally anticipated 800 people.
Therefore, the Parking Study now demonstrates excess of 8 parking spaces on-site at the peak hour. The parking issues have been mostly resolved, and the valet parking is no longer needed.
The primary action to be taken by the Planning Commission tonight is the consideration of a recommendation to City Council of Preliminary Site Plan approval with the ancillary action of recommending acceptance or rejection of the Shared Parking Study. The Commission is also asked to consider the conditions listed in the recommended motion.
Planner Kapelanski said she was available for questions along with our Traffic Consultant, Mr. Rod Arroyo. The applicant is available as well.
Chairperson Pehrson thanked Ms. Kapelanski.
Chairperson Pehrson asked if the applicant had anything to add.
Mr. Mike Sassine came forward and stated that he is one of the partners for 29 Park. His partner Rob spoke to the Commission the last time we were here but has some personal matters tonight and cannot attend. Mr. Sassine stated that he and his partners have agreed to the conditions recommended in the reports. Mr. Sassine stated that they were willing to work within those parameters.
Chairperson Pehrson turned it over to the Commission for consideration.
Member Gutman stated that he is interested in having this project come to Novi. Member Gutman asked Traffic Consultant, Mr. Rod Arroyo if he had reviewed this, and was he comfortable with the analysis that was done.
Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo stated that he had reviewed it and was comfortable with the conclusions. Mr. Arroyo also stated that the biggest change has been the occupancy. Because of that change, it made it much easier to resolve the number of questions we had, and takes away the valet necessity. Mr. Arroyo stated they were comfortable with the conclusions of the Study and are recommending approval of it.
Moved by Member Lynch, seconded by Member Baratta.
In the matter of 29 Park Proposed Nightclub at Main Street, SP 09-11B, motion to recommend approval to City Council for the Preliminary Site Plan and Shared Parking Study subject to the following:
a. The maximum occupancy load of the proposed nightclub shall not exceed 689 people, including employees;
b. The opening time for patrons shall be no earlier than 9PM;
c. Any changes that increase the occupant load beyond 689 people or that alter the start time of business hours will require additional review and approval from the appropriate bodies;
d. A valet parking operation, if later proposed, must be reviewed by staff and consultants and approved by the appropriate bodies after the submission of a plan showing the queuing and parking areas to be used, expected peak demand, average arrival rates, average service rates, queuing analysis and number of valets required;
e. The revised Shared Parking Study indicates a projected parking surplus of 8 spaces at the peak-demand hour of 11:00 p.m. for the entire development, including the proposed nightclub (1000 spaces needed, 1008 spaces provided);
f. Additional comments in the staff and consultant review letters being addressed on the Stamping Set submittal
For the reasons that the proposed site plan is otherwise in compliance with Article 25 and Article 16 of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable provisions of the Ordinance and the proposed Shared Parking Study demonstrates that adequate parking will be provided to support the mix of uses. Motion carried 5-0.
Member Cassis addressed Mr. Arroyo and asked when calculating the shared parking, were all of the properties taken into consideration, including Andiamos and O’Connors. Mr. Arroyo answered yes, and stated that the entire Main Street development including the vacant areas were taken into consideration.
Member Cassis said he was not sure about legalities for Shared Parking. Member Cassis asked that if those other areas were owned by different people, different corporations, would the shared parking become separate in its dimensions as compared with all of that area being under one ownership?
City Attorney, Tom Schultz stated that the properties are apparently owned by different people at this point. The Shared Parking Study itself doesn’t concern itself with ownership. Mr. Schultz stated that it has more to do with the uses that are permitted or existing and the sharing of parking. Mr. Schultz said there is not necessarily an agreement; it is more a method of calculating how much parking is available for all those uses, all those buildings, regardless of the underlying owner.
Member Cassis asked what if the other owners do not want this use to share the parking, yet I know the owner of this building was here last time and said it was okay by him and whatever other outfits he owns there, like the jewelry store and so on and so forth. But we never entered into this situation and I didn’t see any other owners from other buildings that came forward and said yes, we will allow shared parking in our parking spaces.
Mr. Schultz stated that in the original approval of the existing Main Street, there was one developer and the parking was open to all of the uses. Even though those uses may have been separated in terms of ownership, the ability to use all those parking spaces still exists.
Mr. Schultz said he does not know if it ever got to the Planning Commission when this building that we’re talking about became part of a separate condo. There was an issue as to whether some of these parking areas were going to be limited to a particular condo owner. For the most part, at least with all the parking we are talking about tonight, the city was clear that this is open parking, and everyone gets to use it. So, regardless of the owner, it should all function as it did when originally approved back with the original Main Street development.
Member Cassis stated that Mr. Schultz is our city attorney and that he respects his word, that it is a legal situation and that it is okay here. Member Cassis asked Mr. Schultz; what if the other owners said they do not want these people to park here?
Member Cassis explained how Andiamos and Gus O’Connors, as well as this proposed development can get very busy and most of their clientele come after 9:00pm. Member Cassis stated that they read this in Police Reports all the time. Member Cassis asked what will happen if those people who own businesses say, we do not allow parking in our spaces. Member Cassis asked if the owners of the other properties have a right to say that.
Mr. Schultz said in our opinion, no; based upon the approval for the original Main Street plan, this plan, and the plan for parking there in general, the parking is shared among the property owners and uses.
Member Cassis told Mr. Schultz that he would accept his legal opinion. Member Cassis stated that with the approval of our Traffic Consultant and our city attorney whom he both respects, he would go along with this, and approves it and appreciates Mr. Sassine coming to the city and establishing a business. Member Cassis, said he will be voting for this, reluctantly and not because of the Study or the approval by the city attorney, but because we have been having a lot of trouble, police wise, with our bars in that particular area.
Member Cassis stated that he just had to get his statement in as far as what was our aim or goal in Main Street. Member Cassis questioned whether it was to put bars in there, and have people travel there from all over to come here, or did we want a diversified Main Street with boutique shops. Member Cassis wondered where are the boutique shops. Member Cassis said that there is one beautiful boutique shop with the owner not being here tonight, one of our colleagues.
Member Baratta stated that he was assuming that there was some sort of reciprocal easement that covers parking for all these individuals, or some condominium approval that covers parking, so there’s the capability of using parking. Member Baratta asked if this was accurate.
Mr. Schultz stated that if these had developed as separate uses, there would likely be that kind of a situation. What happened here is, it was originally one development when it got site plan approval. There were some later changes in ownership and I wasn’t involved in documenting whether or not there were Cross Access Easements when that happened. But from the city’s perspective, whether such easements exist or not, this is from a regulatory perspective a shared parking area. There may be separate easements that have since been created; if so, fine. If not, from our perspective, that is fine as well, because of the site plan approvals. I’m okay with the conclusion that they have the right to count this parking as available to them. Whether or not it’s enough parking is an issue for the Traffic Study. There’s been no indication from any of the other property owners that we were aware of, that somehow, we shouldn’t be counting the availability of those spaces. If that issue develops, we’ll deal with it then, but it certainly not been raised at this point.
Chairperson Pehrson asked if there was any other discussion. Hearing none, Chairperson Pehrson asked to call the roll.
Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Cassis, Commissioner Baratta, Commissioner Gutman, Commissioner Lynch, Commissioner Pehrson Motion Passes 5-0.
Chairperson Pehrson stated that Mr. Meyer did acknowledge that he would be on vacation this week and absent, let the record reflect that he is excused.
No one else asked to speak.
Chairperson Pehrson closed the audience participation and asked for a vote for adjournment.
Motion to adjourn made by Member Baratta, seconded by Member Lynch. Motion passes 5-0.
The meeting adjourned at 7:21PM.
SCHEDULED AND ANTICIPATED MEETINGS
FRI 07/03/09 CITY OFFICES CLOSED
MON 07/06/09 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM
TUE 07/14/09 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:00 PM
WED 07/15/09 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM
THU 07/16/09 MASTER PLAN & ZONING MEETING 7:00 PM
MON 07/20/09 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM
WED 07/29/09 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM
THU 08/06/09 MASTER PLAN & ZONING MEETING 7:00 PM
MON 08/10/09 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM
TUE 08/11/09 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:00 PM
WED 08/12/09 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM
Transcribed by Juanita Freeman
Date Approved: ________________________________________
Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date