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

Present: Members Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

Absent: Member Avdoulos (excused)

Also Present: David Evancoe, Director of Planning; Barbara McBeth, Planner; Darcy Schmitt, Planner; Tim Schmitt, Planner; Ben Croy, Engineer; Lance Shipman, Landscape Architect; Larry DeBrincat, Vilican-Leman; Don Tilton, Tilton & Associates; Tom Schultz, City Attorney

Member Sprague led the meeting in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Member Ruyle asked that the Citizen Planner Program be discussed under Matters for Discussion. Member Kocan asked that the MSP conference be discussed under Matters for Discussion.

Moved by Member Ruyle, seconded by Member Sprague:

No one from the audience wished to speak.

There was no correspondence to share.

There were no Communications or Committee Reports.

There were no presentations.

There was no Consent Agenda.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Jeff Pfeifer of SKY Development, LLC, for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan, Storm Water Management Plan, Wetland and Woodland Permits. The subject property is located in Section 4, on the southeast corner of Pontiac Trail and Beck Road in the B-3 (General Business) District. The subject property is 14.604 acres. The developer is proposing a community shopping center with specialty retail shops, a drug store and two outlots.

Ms. McBeth located the property on an aerial photo. The subject property is currently vacant land with a seasonal fruit and vegetable stand along the Pontiac Trail frontage and contains 14.6 acres of land on the southeast corner of Pontiac Trail and Beck Road in the northwest corner of the City of Novi. It is zoned B-3 (General Business) and master planned for Community Commercial. The property to the east is developed with the Portsmouth Place Apartments (zoned RM-1 and master planned for Multiple Family Residential). To the south are Pointe Park condominiums currently under construction (zoned RM-1 and master planned for Multiple Family Residential), and two retail shopping centers and a dentist office (zoned B-3 and master planned Community Commercial), all fronting Beck Road. To the west (in Wixom), on the west side of Beck Road is a gas station and The Village apartments (Zoned B-3 and master planned Community Commercial). To the north, in Commerce Township is a gas station and commercial development (zoned commercial and master planned for commercial).

The proposed site plan shows an ell-shaped shopping center of 74,580 square feet and a 13,650 square foot drug store at the northwest corner of the site. A 1.08-acre outlot is proposed for future development on Pontiac Trail and a 1.82-acre outlot is proposed on Beck Road. Three driveways are proposed for the site: Two on Beck Road and one on Pontiac Trail. A six foot tall brick screen wall and landscape buffer plantings are proposed along the south and east property lines, abutting the residential districts.

The Planning Review indicates that the site plan meets Ordinance requirements, and that the Planning Commission may wish to make a determination whether the proposed loading areas and trash receptacles in the interior side yards are acceptable. The south side of the retail shops is considered the interior side yard in this case.

The Wetlands Review indicated that the Wetlands Permit is recommended with items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan review. The Woodlands Review recommended approval of the plan, subject to items being addressed at the time of Final Site Plan review. The Landscaping Review advised that approval of the Preliminary Landscape Plan is recommended subject to a ZBA variance for a minimum of four feet of interior landscaping for the drug store and on the north side of the retail building. Additional information will be required to be submitted at Final Site Plan review. The Traffic Engineer’s Review recommended approval with items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan review. Engineering recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan and Storm Water Management Plan. The Fire Marshal’s Review revealed items that will require attention at the next plan submittal.

The Façade Review indicated that the submitted plans meet the requirements with modifications to the dumpster screen for the pharmacy recommended. The building elevations show that the facades are proposed to be constructed primarily of brick, cast limestone, metal, EIFS and slate-like shingles. Ms. McBeth showed a façade board with the building materials to the Planning Commission.

Mr. Matt Niles of Wah Yee Associates Architects addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of the Applicant. He introduced Jeff Pfeifer and Lorenzo Cavalier of Skye Development, civil engineer Ilke Lacina and their leasing agent. Their goal was to provide a traditional shopping village with a comfortable feel – clock tower, brick pavers, etc. They are comfortable with addressing the comments found in the review letters. The Landscape Review noted that a variance was needed, but the Applicant has already started on a new design that eliminates the need for that variance.

Chair Nagy opened the floor to anyone who wished to speak during this Public Hearing.

Michael Myers, Occidental Development, Orchard Lake Road, Farmington Hills: Owns Portsmouth Apartments directly east of the development. He stated that he hopes that the façade that faces his apartments will also be made of brick. He noted that the six-foot brick wall will appear to be ten-feet from the apartment side, as this Applicant is filling his property. He stated that he hopes that the wall will be brick on the apartment side as well. He also noted that there is a natural drainage flow from the apartment’s property to this property, and he hopes that this remains undisturbed. He said that the wall could affect this drainage so this issue will have to be addressed. He said that the Applicant could run a pipe from the apartment’s catch basin to drain this area. The Applicant has indicated that they are willing to do this. Mr. Myers did not see where any of his concerns were problematic, but he asked that the Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject to this drainage issue being addressed. Member Kocan confirmed that only the owner of the apartments received the Notice of Public Hearing (not the residents).

Chuck Tindall, 2453 Shawood: Noted that across the street from this development is a Kroger. Up the street there is a strip mall with a drug store at 14 Mile. At Beck and Pontiac Trail there is a strip mall with a drug store. Behind this property to the south is one or two mostly-vacant strip malls. He said that when he moved to Novi he was assured that Novi was a different community that did not have strip malls on every corner; however, he now wonders if that is not true. He asked the Planning Commission, "Another strip mall?"

Chair Nagy closed the Public Hearing.

Member Kocan stated that a strip mall is acceptable in a B-3 zoning, and while Mr. Tindall’s point is well taken, the developer has the right to assume all risks. Member Kocan wished to speak on behalf of the renters in the area. She is concerned when something commercial or industrial is built after the residents are already in the area – which is a different scenario than pre-existing commercial and industrial, when a resident moves to the area with full knowledge of their existence in the area.

Member Kocan wants to ensure that all Ordinances are met. She cited Section 2509 and said that it explained loading and unloading. She cited 1503.5 that emphatically states that, "No truckwell, loading door, overhead door or other type of service bay door shall face a major thoroughfare nor an abutting residential district. Pedestrian exits or emergency doors are permitted on such building facades." Member Kocan stated that the Staff interpreted this and said that only pedestrian service doors are on the rear of the building. Member Kocan does not accept this interpretation; every single building has a loading zone behind the building. This area is meant for truck deliveries. Member Kocan asked where the loading was going to be.

Member Kocan also discussed the six-foot wall. She said that the wall is at the discretion of the Planning Commission; it is not, by right, allowed between a residential property and a B-3 property. She said that a six-foot berm is required. The Planning Commission can substitute a wall for a berm if the conditions dictate that change and they find the wall an acceptable alternative (Section 2509.6.c). A six-foot berm would necessitate at least forty feet of land; a wall allows this development to be twenty feet closer to residential than it needs to be. Member Kocan does not support the design because it is too close to the property line. She did acknowledge that a noise analysis was performed by a reputable firm. She thought that perhaps the Applicant should have provided some justification for the wall and an explanation of why the berm is not feasible. She said that trees planted on a berm would provide a better barrier than the wall.

Member Kocan said that that drive-thrus are typically not allowed in the B-3 zoning, except in cases where the drive-thru usage is an accessory use; however, Member Kocan said that if two lanes are provided it is hardly an accessory use. She asked that the Applicant address this issue.

Member Kocan said that a comment was made that the Applicant would try not to impact the trees on the Portsmouth side. Member Kocan said that their effort must NOT impact the trees, and the drainage must not be impacted either.

Member Paul said that Maybury Park Estates was supposed to get water from Northville but that never materialized. City Engineer Ben Croy confirmed for Member Paul that this project will be getting its water from Wixom, and it will be required for Wixom to put this in writing for this Applicant. Member Paul said she cannot support this project without absolute confirmation of water access. She was concerned about the stormwater issues and thought they should be addressed. She asked Mr. Croy what kind of natural protection bay is being used for the water runoff. He responded that a sub-surface stormwater treatment chamber (two separate systems and two chambers for sedimentation purposes) is proposed. It is located prior to the discharge to the detention basin. This system is being used instead of a four-bay system. Mr. Croy said the Applicant will have to submit a maintenance plan that shows they will clean the system quarterly or whatever is deemed appropriate. This would be done between Final Site Plan and Stamping Set submittal.

Member Paul was concerned that this plan was coming forward without a true completed tree survey, which makes it difficult for the Planning Commission to grant the Woodlands Permit. Member Paul also asked about the Fire Department letter. She understood that the Applicant would provide a second connection pursuant to Item 1. She also asked that the Applicant provide the three-inch address on both elevations, since the property faces two directions. Member Paul agreed with the apartment representative about the façade remaining brick on the abutting side of the building. She said she had concerns about the dumpster screening and drainage.

She did not support the project at this time, but would listen to the responses made by the Applicant.

Mr. Niles told the Planning Commission that they are seeking approval from Wixom for the access to water. Their request will go before their Planning Commission on October 6, 2003. The Wixom Engineering Department has already given their preliminary comments on the request. He asked this Planning Commission to approve this plan with the stipulation that the Applicant receives approval from Wixom for water.

Mr. Niles said he was not sure what the concern was regarding the overhead doors. He said that no overhead doors are facing residential. Chair Nagy said that the Ordinance says, "any other type of service bay doors." The Applicant asked if a standard three-by-seven door was considered a service bay door, and Chair Nagy said the Planning Commission would discuss that.

Member Ruyle asked about the water drainage issue brought up by Mr. Myers. Mr. Croy responded that a simple solution would be to install a catch basin that drains to the Portsmouth property’s existing system. If the Applicant is willing to do that, there would be no problem with that concept and it would be an easy installation. Member Ruyle asked Mr. Niles to say for the record that he would put in that drainage system for the apartments; Mr. Niles responded that he would.

Member Ruyle asked about the height of the brick wall. Mr. Niles responded that the elevation would be measured on the subject property’s side, and that it is likely that the wall will be "taller" on the apartment side because of different grading.

Member Ruyle asked if the building facing residential would be brick. Mr. Niles said that the building would be brick, EIFS, cast stone, etc. He said his recollection is that the façade is about 70% brick. Mr. Niles said that there is no signed contract for the pharmacy. Member Ruyle said that if they sign with Walgreen’s, that they will not be able to make the façade unique to their store; the façade of the building would have to remain as presented at this meeting. Mr. Niles said that a façade rendering was submitted with their package for the Planning Commission’s review. He thought their façade was harmonious with the rest of the center.

Member Shroyer was concerned about the berm and the loading area. He thought that the berm would provide for a greater distance between the center and the property line. Member Shroyer asked what the opacity would be with the use of a double row of trees and the six-foot wall. Landscape Architect Lance Shipman responded that this design would provide a greater opacity, especially in light of the fact that the property is at a higher elevation. He said the double row of evergreens is the most effective means of achieving the appropriate opacity levels. He said that the Zoning Ordinance dictates what the timeframe is that a plan has to reach the appropriate level of opacity.

Member Shroyer asked if the trees and the wall would shield the abutting residential from the lights of the proposed two-story building. Mr. Shipman said that the lighting would be shielded based on the Ordinance requirements, and the evergreens would stop any light that might bounce off the building toward the residences. Member Shroyer noted that the brick is dark and would bounce less light anyway. He said the issue is that because the wall allows the building to be closer to the abutting residential, greater review of the opacity issue is necessary.

Member Shroyer asked where the catch basin would be located. Mr. Croy responded that it would be on the east edge of the proposed development, basically near the middle of the property line. Member Shroyer confirmed it would not be in the future development area. Mr. Croy responded that it would be the northeast corner of the north-south length building. The basin would be directly east of the parking lot, on the apartment property. Their drainage would be self contained.

Member Shroyer asked why there is an area that is not buffered by the detention pond in the front of the site plan. Mr. Croy explained that he requires that open area for maintenance purposes. This allows for equipment to get into the area for maintenance. It is not a safety concern, as long as the basin has the proper slopes. There is no fencing.

Member Papp asked about the pedestrian service doors – and whether trucks would be unloading at those doors. Mr. Niles said that service trucks would use those doors. Member Papp asked when the trucks would arrive, or would those trucks park overnight in the lot, with their coolers running. Mr. Niles responded that he did not have an answer at this time. He clarified that there are no signed tenants for the center. Mr. Niles reminded the Planning Commission that the Noise Analysis took the truck traffic into consideration, and the property is well within the decibel limits of the analysis.

Member Sprague liked the development and was glad to see that no variances were necessary. He did not see that the residents to the east would have too much of a negative impact from this development. He said the berm vs. wall issue was a valid one, but he did not have a problem with the wall as long as it provided the appropriate amount of opacity and shielding from noise.

Member Markham asked Mr. Shipman whether the wall and evergreens are as effective as a berm would be. Mr. Shipman responded that in terms of height, this issue becomes less significant over time as the trees grow. From a sound standpoint, walls sometimes provide better sound attenuation than earth berms. Sound can travel along a berm because the slope facilitates it.

Member Markham asked if the size of the pond is reflective of the amount of drainage anticipated or is it an aesthetic feature to the property. She wondered if the building was re-situated on the site whether there was some leeway in the pond size to accommodate any lost parking. Mr. Croy said that he was somewhat sure that the pond is the minimum-required size and could not be reduced.

Member Markham confirmed with the Applicant that they do not need the waiver for the building landscaping. Mr. Niles responded that they have already made changes (shifting the building) which allows for them to get the required landscaping on the site.

She asked what the parking spots are for that are in the southeast corner of the lot. Mr. Niles said that there is a twelve-foot opening in the building in that area. Member Markham liked the development and thought that this shopping center is less aggressive than what could be designed for a B-3 parcel.

Chair Nagy cited Section 2509.6.b, "For those Zoning Districts and uses abutting or adjacent to residential listed above, there is to be provided an obscuring landscaped earth berm. The berm height shall be measured from whichever side provides the most height for screening the residentially-zoned property. The berm shall be landscaped and maintained in a clean, orderly and growing condition, and shall meet the minimum design standards (See Berm Cross Section Detail)". She wanted the Applicant to understand from which side he would have to measure that wall.

Chair Nagy confirmed with Ms. McBeth how the water drains from Mr. Myers’ property onto the subject property. She then asked Mr. Shipman if he thought that the landscaping around the gaps in the wall was excessive. She said that the Applicant has already responded that the gaps allow for adequate and equal access to all future tenants’ entranceways. These landscaped areas can make leasing difficult; tenants do not want their entrances blocked – even by landscaping. Excessive landscaping, the Applicant wrote in his response, translates into vacancies.

Mr. Shipman responded that he could not determine whether the landscaping was excessive until he understands where the doors will be and what the access pattern will be. He thought that the final design would provide both adequate landscaping and allow for easy access to the stores. He noted that the landscaping has been pushed away from the building, closer to the parking lot, in an effort to make the entrances more accessible. Mr. Shipman has asked the Applicant to provide better information on their landscaping plans so it can be determined if the amount is appropriate. He said this information would be necessary at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

Mr. Niles responded to Chair Nagy that they do not know where the doors will be placed at this time, because tenants like to make those decisions. They like flexibility. Chair Nagy said that the Planning Commission likes landscaping. Mr. Niles said that they would accommodate the request to provide better information. Chair Nagy said that she hopes they maximize their landscaping plans.

Chair Nagy appreciated that the Applicant has met the requirements of the Ordinance. She does not support two drive-thru lanes. She is not willing to support the Applicant on this request.

Member Shroyer assumed that many of the customers of this shopping center would come from the apartments. He suggested that the wall have an opening so that those residents have an easier means of getting to the center. Mr. Niles said that the suggestion is possible and that he would consider that. Member Shroyer said that if the change were submitted for the Final Site Plan he would not have a problem with the Planning Department providing an administrative approval for this change.

Member Sprague agreed that he would prefer to only see one lane for the drive-thru as well. Member Ruyle stated that two drive-thrus are not necessary.

Chair Nagy stated that she would like to see both a wall and a berm on this property. She does not want the residents to be bothered by the trucks that park by the back doors with their engines idling. Mr. Shipman responded that her request was feasible, but the site plan would have to change. He said that currently the Ordinance reads "one or the other." Chair Nagy said she thought the wall with the trees was a better barrier than the berm. Chair Nagy also commended the Applicant for providing an accel/decel lane. She confirmed for the Applicant that his plan does meet requirements.

Moved by Member Sprague, supported by Member Markham:

Member Shroyer stated he was in favor of the project but asked whether the maker of the motion would include in his motion: The Applicant would have to receive approval from the City of Wixom for water access.

Member Sprague agreed to include the Wixom water access in his motion, but he did not support the reduction of drive-thrus. Member Markham, the seconder, agreed with Member Sprague.

Member Paul asked Larry DeBrincat, Woodlands Consultant, how the City could determine which trees are to be saved - if the Woodland Permit is issued prior to receipt of the tree survey, allowing the Applicant to clear and grub the property. Dr. DeBrincat said the permit could be held until an accurate survey is provided. City Attorney Tom Schultz said that internally, the City will make sure that before the final plans are approved and the permit is issued, the Applicant has addressed all of the Woodland Consultant’s comments. Member Paul confirmed that this would be done before any clearing or grubbing. She asked if that could actually be listed as a stipulation in the motion, and Mr. Schultz said yes.

Member Paul asked the maker and seconder of the motion whether they would agree to the following stipulation being added to the motion: The tree survey needs to be completed prior to grubbing the property or any land removal takes place. They both agreed to this language. Mr. DeBrincat stated that he is the one who prepares and signs the Woodland Permit and he would not approve it without some kind of resolve on the tree survey first.

Member Markham asked if there was any Planning Commission interest in adding language such as this:

If it is permitted and feasible to put a pathway in from the adjacent apartments to the proposed development, this can be approved administratively. Member Sprague agreed to include this in the motion. Chair Nagy said that it is a nice idea, but it should be kept in mind that the owners of Portsmouth Apartments might want to weigh in on this suggestion.

Moved by Member Ruyle, seconded by Member Kocan:

Motion carried 5-3 (Yes: Kocan, Papp, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer; No: Markham, Nagy, Sprague).

The question before the Planning Commissioners, as moved by Member Sprague and seconded by Member Markham, and amended by Member Ruyle is:

Member Kocan stated that she would not be supporting the motion because she is very adamant about the berm and the extra distance. She does not believe that it has been demonstrated at the meeting that the site conditions restrict the Applicant from providing the berm. Chair Nagy asked Mr. Shipman to comment. He said that the Zoning Ordinance allows the use of a wall in lieu of a berm should the Planning Commission determine that there are specific site restrictions that preclude them from placing the berm. In addition, the Planning Commission must find that the wall is an acceptable alternative to the berm.

Chair Nagy clarified that the wall and landscaping is not acceptable to Member Kocan; she responded yes, that the trees are going to grow at the same rate whether they are on the ground or up higher. The opacity issue is compromised by the wall design.

Mr. Schultz said that the minutes of this Planning Commission meeting should include the finding that supports their amendment. That is, the Planning Commission finds that one lane is accessory to the drug store use, but two lanes is more than an accessory use."

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Gary Jonna of Whitehall Real Estate Interests, for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan, Storm Water Management Plan, Wetland, and Woodlands Permits. The subject property is located in Section 13 between I-96 and Eleven Mile between Meadowbrook and M-5 in the (I-1) Light Industrial District. The Applicant is proposing three buildings: Building A, speculative 2-story 50,878 square feet; Building B, 27,084 square feet; Building C, 16,144 square feet, speculative-high tech/research and development. The subject property is 11.8994 acres.

Planner Darcy Schmitt located the property on an aerial photo. The property is zoned I-1 (light industrial) and master planned for light industrial. The property to the south is zoned I-2. The remaining properties are zoned I-1. All the properties are master planned for light industrial.

To the east of the building envelope is a substantial wetland and woodland area. The main entrance is off of Eleven Mile and the secondary entrance is off of Bridge Street. The Planning Review indicates that a Planning Commission Waiver is necessary for parking lot setback on the northwest property line. There are other minor issues that would have to be addressed prior to Final Site Plan submittal if the Planning Commission chooses to grant this waiver.

The Wetlands Review approved the site plan with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. The Woodlands Review approved the site plan with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. The Landscape Review, Traffic Review, Engineering Review, and Façade Review all indicate that the plan meets the requirements, with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. The Facade Review approved the site plan. Ms. Schmitt passed around the façade board for the Planning Commission to review. Ms. Schmitt used an aerial map and showed where the setback waiver is necessary.

Member Ruyle asked for clarification on how far away the trailer park is from this development. He was told that it was about a half-mile away.

Mr. Gary Jonna, President of Whitehall Real Estate Interests, 27750 Middlebelt Road, Farmington Hills, addressed the Planning Commission. He said that several years ago the northern portion of this site received a Preliminary Site Plan approval for a two story office building that was to be used by Ikon Office Solutions. They also had a leasehold interest on the building immediately west of that Preliminary Site Plan location. It was the beginning of a campus for Ikon. Subsequently, Ikon determined not to proceed, and they have now moved into a one-story building on Meadowbrook Road. Mr. Jonna was drawn to the property because of its uniqueness.

The design of this siteplan is based on six stated objectives: 1) Preserve and protect the high quality natural features on the site; 2) Consolidate a number of scattered storm detention basins that also serve the westerly property into one pond that meets the requirements of the City of Novi; 3) Create a high-quality conservation area that fully integrates the wetlands and woodlands and the storm management system and the supplemental upland plantings and landscaped buffers; 4) Take advantage of freeway visibility with special attention paid to building orientation and architectural expression; 5) Create a corporate campus project with complementary architecture between the three buildings and an integrated site design that will attract a high-end user; and 6) Elevate the image and overall perception of the last phase of Meadowbridge Industrial Park.

Lis Newman of Landry-Newman Architecture addressed the Planning Commission. She noted that the property is bound to the north by I-96, to the south by Eleven Mile, to the west the Meadowbridge Park and to the east by the

M-5 freeway. This project will serve as the distinguishing factor for the entire Meadowbridge development as well as the I-96 corridor for the City of Novi.

Ms. Newman emphasized two concepts with the site plan. First they wanted to create a "campus." The edges of the site are bordered by buildings rather than the parking, which has been internalized and consolidated. The view from Eleven Mile and the freeways will be the buildings and the landscaping. They created an entry focal point with special landscaping and pavement. The northernmost building is a two-story building and is thirty feet tall. It could house a high-bay lab area and an elongated two-story office along the wetland and woodland areas of the property. The other two buildings are more typical of a high-tech building – with a 60% office/40% high-bay use.

The second concept was to maximize the property’s green space. The entire easternmost portion has been developed as a special wetland and woodland area. Ms. Newman said the Applicant is requesting a ten-foot waiver of the greenspace because the existing paving and existing cross-access easement in the deed made adding the ten feet of landscaping seem counterproductive. In lieu of the ten feet along the west edge, the plan provides for 220 feet of green space along the east edge (ten feet required).

Ms. Newman used a diagram that showed the combined paved and building area totals 40% of the site, far less than what could have been developed on the property (potentially 64%). The wetland and woodland area has been permitted by the MDEQ, and there is a 25-foot buffer between the wetlands and the development. There is a wetlands mitigation area that’s been worked out with the City’s consultant. There are also existing wooded wetlands that have remained in tact. The detention basin consolidates a lot of miscellaneous drainage systems that were on the property, including those on the Meadowbridge property, and has been turned into a feature that will attract high-end users to the project.

Ms. Newman said that the architecture utilizes the same brick throughout– natural orange and a deeper red-orange. The buildings will have green glass and some neutral colored metal panel accents. The materials are timeless and the actual design of the buildings, with their verticality, expressed with the brick piers, will create a great image. The Eleven Mile buildings are 22 feet tall. The masonry expression along the freeway creates a more solid wall for the campus and the glass expression faces the pond.

Ms. Newman said that they responded to the review letters and the Planning Commission has received this response. She closed by stating that the Applicant has worked diligently with the City to create this project.

Member Kocan said that the waiver has been called a greenspace waiver, a parking setback waiver and a building setback waiver. She asked for clarification. Ms. Schmitt said that it is a parking setback waiver to address the distance from the property line. Mr. Jonna further clarified that it is the road and has to do with the lot line coming into the middle of the road which will be a shared access.

Chair Nagy asked whether anyone from the public wished to speak. Seeing no one, Chair Nagy closed the Public Hearing.

Member Ruyle appreciated that Mr. Jonna routinely brings plans to the City that meet the requirements. Member Ruyle complimented the architect on the design, which incorporated the interior parking area.

Moved by Member Ruyle, seconded by Member Shroyer:

Member Paul commended the Applicant for the plan. She also approved of the interior parking design. She asked about the 52 trees that qualify for the parking lot landscaping. Mr. Shipman explained that when he reviewed the plan he was only able to locate 52 of the necessary 62 parking lot trees. He requested in his review that the Applicant amend the placement of the trees to the appropriate locations prior to the time of Final Site Plan submittal. Mr. Jonna agreed that the additional ten trees would be added to the plan.

Member Paul asked about dumpster screening. Ms. Newman responded that they sent a letter dated

August 20, 2003 stating that the black gum trees would be removed, the notes will be added, the City standards language will be added, existing soils information will be noted, and a typical cross-section will be provided.

Member Shroyer asked for a history of the original wetlands, the proposed wetlands and the impact areas lettered A through G. The Applicant’s wetland consultant, Brooks Williamson, explained that the plan calls for .38 acres of wetland fill. The area of wetland fill is the east end of the highway-fronting building. There is a swale in that area of very low quality canary grass, shallow slopes, and very little water moves through this system. This area is planned to be filled. He said that the palustrine forested wetland, which is actually a slight depression on the site, occupies a wooded area filled with silver maples, green ash, American elm, etc. This area will remain intact. The mitigation wetland is proposed along the westerly side of the existing wetland, and the easterly side of the development. This design will use roof runoff and the water will be clean. This area totals about 19,000 square feet. There is another small area by the south side of the existing driveway that used to service a small home on a wooded knoll. This is about 4,200 square feet of mitigation. A 25-boot buffer around the westside perimeter of the wetland was also left undisturbed. The wooded hill would be left intact and supplemented along with the area south of the driveway. The total "natural" area is more than 5.5 acres of the 11.9-acre site.

Member Shroyer noted that the pending change to the Landscape Ordinance would prohibit runs of more than fifteen parking spaces. He suggested that although the Applicant would not have to comply with this stipulation, he may wish to consider this when he adds those additional ten trees to the site. He also suggested that a pathway or picnic area be included on the plan so that the employees could further enjoy the natural setting. He thanked the Applicant for such a clean site plan.

Member Kocan thought this was a nicely designed plan. She commented that asking the Applicants to provide the Planning Commission with a response letter is one of the best decisions the Planning Commission has made. She said the developer agreed to this stipulation: The Applicant will post a financial guaranty for future consideration of a walkway in lieu of construction of the walk. She would be in favor of that language being added to the motion. Both the maker and seconder of the motion agreed to that change.

Member Kocan asked Mr. Croy whether he had a problem with the Applicant’s request to make the slope of the detention basin 5:1 rather than 4:1. Mr. Croy said that because of the location that it would be okay, and the Planning Commission could require fencing if they wanted to. Both Member Kocan and Mr. Croy agreed that the fencing was unnecessary. Mr. Schultz confirmed that no language was necessary to address this in the motion because it was on the plan.

Member Kocan confirmed that the parking waiver is necessary because of the property line and is not needed to address a property split. Member Kocan asked if the Applicant needed an agreement for his employees to use Bridge Street, a private road. The Applicant responded that the entitlement to use the road runs with the property, as part of the original Master Deed. Member Kocan noted that traffic coming in off of Eleven Mile could be affected by the truck traffic at buildings B and C, and that use of Bridge Street is important. She supported the motion.

Chair Nagy appreciated the nice work submitted by the Applicant. She noted that the woodlands on the property are very nice. She supported the motion.

Chair Nagy called for a five minute break.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of the Singh Development Company to rezone the subject property located in Section 10 on northwest corner of Novi Road and 12 ½ Mile, from R-A (Residential Acreage) to R-4 (Single Family Residential). The subject property is approximately 19.74 acres.

Planner Tim Schmitt located the property on an aerial map. The property is currently zoned R-A. There is an adjacent area zoned R-1, one zoned B-3 and the area north is R-4. To the south is RM-1. The entire area to the north, east and west is master planned for single family residential. To the south it is zoned multiple residential with a PD-1 option. This zoning is consistent with the development in the area – Carlton Forest, Charneth Fen and Society Hill.

The residential density map for the area shows that the property is zoned at 3.3 units to the acre, as is the area to the north. The smaller parcels to the west are master planned 1.65 units to the acre. To the south, Carlton Forest is master planned at 6.5, Charneth Fen at 7.3 and Society Hill 12.0 dwelling units per acre.

The Planning Department supports the Applicant’s request for R-4, as it is in compliance with the Master Plan for Land Use, both in terms of use and density. He told the Planning Commission they have these options available to them: 1) Send a positive recommendation for the R-4 rezoning to City Council; 2) Send a negative recommendation for the R-4 rezoning request to City Council; or 3) Send a positive recommendation for any other residential designation to City Council. Given the proximity of residential to the north and multiple residential to the south, the Planning Department finds no other alternative for the property other than some kind of single family designation. Mr. Schmitt said that the Planning Department approves of the R-4 designation because it is in compliance with the Master Plan. A commercial or multiple family designation would not be appropriate.

Mr. Schmitt reiterated that there are single family residences in and around the Shawood-Walled Lake Heights subdivision and two subdivisions to the east of the subject property. The west side properties are zoned R-A and master planned for 1.65 dwelling units per acre. Two multiple family dwellings are to the south.

Mr. Schmitt continued that under the current zoning there are several Principal Land Uses that the subject property could be used for other than residential with acreage, such as public parks and schools. Special Land Uses include plant nurseries, dairies with no retail component, keeping of livestock, historic landmarks or bed and breakfasts. The minimum lot size in R-A is 43,560 square feet with a density of .8 dwelling units to the acre. Setbacks are 45 feet in the front and 20 foot side yards (50-foot aggregate) and 50-foot rear yard setbacks.

R-4 allows one-family dwellings, farms, greenhouses, public parks and the keeping of horses. As a Special Land Use R-4 allows churches, schools, daycares and golf courses. Lot size is 10,000 square feet and the setbacks are thirty feet in the front, ten-foot sideyards (25-feet aggregate) and 35 feet in the rear. Density is 3.3 dwelling units to the acre.

The Planning Commission packet included a report on the development potential of this property. At a maximum, R-A would yield 15 dwelling units; R-4 would yield up to 65 units. These numbers would be affected by the roads and utilities. The site’s woodlands will be mitigated at the time of site plan approval. Public water is available at the site and sewer is available to the north or east and would have to be extended. Novi Road is master planned to be five lanes in this section. There are no plans to pave 12 ½ Mile.

The Traffic Review provided comments on the trip generation; no issues were raised by the information provided by the Applicant.

Mr. Khanh Pham of Singh Development said that he would make his statements brief, as his request was consistent with the Master Plan, the Planning Department supported his request and Mr. Schmitt made a fair representation of the Applicant’s interest in the property. Mr. Pham said they are proposing an R-4 subdivision, but there were no plans to share for this rezoning.

Member Kocan had several pieces of correspondence to share.

OBJECTIONS:

Christina Kotrych, 2245 Crown: Said this is not a good buffer between zoning districts and asked if it was spot zoning.

Glenn Schoening, 150 Pleasant Cove Drive: Said Applicant knew current zoning when they bought the land. He saw no need for crowded parcel development.

Donna Sienkiewicz, 298 Shamrock Hill: Asked that the City quit making Novi more sterile, all for the love of money.

Scott Quillen, 100 Pleasant Cove Drive: Said current roads can’t handle traffic and the plan would reduce his property value. He said the owner bought the property when it was zoned R-A.

John Hinerman, 2240 Crown Drive: Said there is enough residential and commercial in the area. He asked who would pay to expand the infrastructure.

Dina Ascenzo, 135 Pleasant Cove: Just bought the adjoining property after being told by the City that this parcel was zoned R-A. She said this change would decrease her property value.

Steven Swaggerty, 128 Linhart: Said no developer needs to build eighty houses on this parcel.

Josephine Jackson, 28160 Dixon Road: Opposed the change.

Jennifer & Dennis Kramer, 245 Pleasant Cove: Bought their R-A home knowing it was surrounded by R-A. They said that the parcel is heavily wooded and asked that the City keep Novi wooded and beautiful.

Laurie Griffith, 240 Pleasant Cove: Wished to protect the wildlife and trees. This development would ruin a natural area.

George Willobee, 2465 Shawood: Concerned about the cost of roads and utilities. He was concerned that high density would degrade the adjoining park.

Karen Smith, 2520 Shawood: Objected but provided no additional comments.

David T. Krom, 2250 Crown Drive: Doesn’t want rural atmosphere changed.

Therese Leszcz, 283 Shamrock Hill: Asked that density be reduced and as many trees be saved as possible. She does not think the roads will support the traffic.

Thomas Leszcz: 283 Shamrock Hill: Said that there are a number of houses in the area that are not selling. He asked for the number of houses on this property be limited. He reminded the Planning Commission that the tree farm would soon have houses built upon it as well.

Henry Wede, 240 Shamrock Hill: Would destroy the beauty of lifestyle of the community. He asked the City stop the rampant development.

APPROVALS

Albert Chicorel, 43443 Fonda: Said that keeping the building industry going in the US is a good thing.

KJ Albers, 43701 12 ½ Mile: Said the use was harmonious to the area.

Chair Nagy opened the floor to the audience for those wishing to make comments.

Chuck Tindall, 2453 Shawood: He opposed the development because of the loss of trees. He said the Woodlands Ordinance in the City is a total failure. He had concerns about the traffic and the school becoming overcrowded. He asked who would pay for these things after the developer has made his money on the property and is long gone. He commented that the Parks and Recreation’s plan that City Council adopted stated that the City is 80-100 acres short of parklands for the size of this community, and is roughly the size of the parcel the City just gave away. The north end of the City already has enough dense development. He said that what is lacking is open, spacious development.

Virginia Gulledge, 225 Pleasant Cove: She and her husband Hugh object because it would destroy the natural beauty, overcrowd the schools and would burden the current land owners with road costs. She moved to the area for the many trees, as she needs a lot of oxygen. She asked that it not be rezoned more densely than R-1.

Laverne H. Rinke, 165 Pleasant Cove Drive: Said the R-A zoning is a good buffer between Pleasant Cove and

12 ½ Mile. He said that R-4 is spot zoning. He also said that people would beat down the Applicant’s doors to buy one-acre lot homes in this area. He said the traffic generated by R-4 could range from 200 to 500 trips per day and the road is not equipped to handle that. The densities from Sandstone, south of 12 ½ Mile and Dixon Road are just too much already. The only benefit is the developer is going to make his money. He said that he and his neighbors did not move to the area for a high density use.

James Ascenzo, 135 Pleasant Cove: Said that sixty homes in the community would not add value to anything but to the developer. He also said that the Master Plan shows R-A for the area. He disagrees with the Applicant’s request. He said that because the City had to give park land to another developer, that alone should negate the deal.

Evelyn Reinke, 165 Pleasant Cove Drive: Asked Planning Commission to consider whether the increased zoning district would do anything other than crowd the area.

Angie Bruder, 195 Pleasant Cove: Doesn’t think the heavy density is necessary. She also doesn’t think that this parcel is appropriate for R-4. She asked who would benefit from this rezoning. She hopes that the developer maintains the natural woods as much as possible.

Chair Nagy closed the Public Hearing.

Member Markham stated that she was the chair of the Master Plan and Zoning Committee and that they recently reviewed Section 10 of the Zoning Map to discuss what changes might be considered for the Master Plan Update. She asked Ms. Schmitt, the Staff consultant for the Committee, to give a brief synopsis of this meeting. Ms. Schmitt said that they discussed the older stature of the area and the parkland. They discussed the 3.3 density and determined that it was compatible with the surrounding areas. They plan on looking at the completed Thoroughfare Plan regarding future road projects or issues and if there is information in this Thoroughfare Plan that is incompatible with the 3.3 density, they will revisit this Section of the Zoning Map. Ms. Schmitt felt that based on the preliminary review of the Thoroughfare Plan, it was fairly consistent with the 3.3 density, and the patterns blend nicely together, transitioning to a lighter density toward the park land. The traffic report on this rezoning was consistent with the infrastructure in the area. The water and sewer numbers indicate that the area can support this density.

Member Markham said the comment that the City should try to balance the density resulting from the Sandstone Lawsuit with new projects has a lot of relevancy. She also agreed that the City doesn’t have to cram density into every project, especially when unplanned densities have been added to the plan.

Member Markham said that one-acre parcels would not necessarily save the high-quality woodlands; in fact, it would more than likely result in clear-cutting. Member Markham said that the City would like to save those trees. She voiced her disappointment in the Applicant, stating that it seemed like a poker game wherein he was asking for the maximum density, hoping to arrive at a middle ground with the City. She said that it was unrealistic for the Applicant to think about putting 65 units on this parcel. She said that the Applicant needs to consider the cluster option or the preservation option so that the woodlands remain intact. She cannot support a rezoning to R-4 but would support R-1, because she understands that an Applicant needs to have an economically viable plan. She thinks R-4 is inconsistent with the parcel and the traffic pattern of the area. She thought the City has to be sensitive to the residents of Pleasant Cove. She said that Pleasant Cove is actually spot zoning. She said they need to be buffered somewhat from being completely surrounded by R-4 developments.

Member Paul said that if the property was rezoned to R-1 and the Applicant made use of the Open Space option, they could reach the density of R-2 and leave the natural features intact. She said that the Applicant could realize anywhere from 33-40 lots. Member Paul supported R-1.

Member Sprague asked how many lots the Applicant would actually attain using R-4. Mr. Schmitt said that 65 would be impossible, as it does not take roads into account. Realistically their traffic study indicated 47 units and Mr. Schmitt thought that seemed like a reasonable, high-end estimate. Mr. Schmitt said that he would really need to see a site plan to make a more thorough review of the maximum density question.

Member Sprague asked if the zoning affects where the roads are placed. Mr. Schmitt said that road placement is not something that can be determined at this time. He noted that the intersection of Novi Road and Old Novi Road are not exactly at a ninety-degree angle. He said that if he were laying out the site he would put a north and a south access into the parcel and would avoid 12 ½ Mile entirely. Another option would be to design an ell-shaped road that puts most of the traffic on Novi or Old Novi and makes 12 ½ Mile a secondary access. 12 ½ Mile is a narrow dirt road and a developer would not likely choose it over a paved road for its main access.

Member Sprague asked what the Applicant would provide in terms of infrastructure. Mr. Schmitt said there are no plans to pave or widen 12 ½ Mile. It could be designated as a national beauty road. Water service is available at the site and runs along the frontage of the site. Sewer service is available slightly to the north and slightly to the east. More than likely, the developer will run the service under Novi Road or under Old Novi Road. It is a fairly short distance. Mr. Schmitt expects that the costs to extend this service would be borne by the Applicant. He also said that if something were going to be done to 12 ½ Mile it would be paid for by the City, and if there was a change to the intersection, it would be the City’s responsibility but he emphasized that this was not something that is currently being considered. Member Sprague supported a lower density rezoning.

Member Shroyer noted that the traffic consultant suggested the paving of 12 ½ Mile. He would not support R-4, might consider R-3, but preferred R-2 with Open Space.

Member Papp agreed that 65 units would be too much on this parcel. He noted that a nearby property is experiencing bidding wars on premium lots in their subdivision. He supported the property remaining R-A with a winding road.

Member Ruyle would prefer R-A but would probably support R-1.

Member Kocan said that this was a tough decision because the Master Plan does say R-4. However, she also noted that this Master Plan is four years old and the City needs to look at what has happened in that area over the last four years that may change the Master Plan scenario. When Member Kocan looked north of this property, she noted that there some one-acre lots. She does not believe that the maximum density on this parcel behooves the area or the City. She said that the Master Plan is a living document that evolves. She said that the Planning Commission is only giving a recommendation to City Council, and that the final decision would be made by them on the rezoning. She supports an R-1 and possibly R-2 rezoning but R-4 removes any incentives for the Applicant to try to save the natural features.

Chair Nagy walked the property and found the area beautiful. She thinks the zoning in that area is old. She would never support R-4 for this area; she supported R-A as the starting point in zoning this property although she would support R-1. Chair Nagy referred to the various surveys that City residents have filled out, and the two major comments made are the City is being overbuilt and the City is losing too much of its natural features. She noted that this Applicant has developed some beautiful projects in the City and that they would likely do the same here. She also thought the residents who responded to this Public Hearing made some valid points – especially the concern for traffic and schools.

Moved by Member Paul, seconded by Member Ruyle:

Mr. Evancoe asked Mr. Schmitt to clarify the issue about density and options. He responded that under the Open Space option the density is not changed, just the lot sizes are reduced by one zoning classification. Member Paul asked if she could change her motion wording to: The Open Space Act is an option to assure as much preservation of the natural resources as possible. Mr. Schmitt and Mr. Schultz said the language was okay and Member Ruyle agreed to the change.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of the Scott A. Riddle to rezone the subject property located in Section 24 north of Grand River Avenue and east of Meadowbrook Road, from I-1 (Light Industrial) to B-3 (General Business). The subject property is approximately 6.721acres.

The subject property is zoned I-1, Light Industrial, as are the properties to the north, east, and northwest. To the west, on the west side of Meadowbrook Road, the properties are zoned NCC - Non-Center Commercial. To the south, on the south side of Grand River, the properties are zoned OS-1, Office Service.

The Master Plan for Land Use recommends Community Commercial uses for the subject property and the property immediately to the south, on the southeast corner of Grand River and Meadowbrook. To the north and east the Master Plan recommends light industrial uses for the properties. To the west of Meadowbrook Road, on both sides of Grand River Avenue, the Master Plan recommends Town Center Gateway uses for the properties.

The Applicant has requested the zoning change in order to submit a site plan for a vehicle dealership on this property. The Applicant has presented a site plan to the Plan Review Center showing a proposed showroom, offices and outside display areas.

A Planning Review and Traffic Engineering Review, as well as the proposed Gateway East Ordinance and Council minutes from the August meeting when the new Ordinance was discussed, were all included in the packets for the Planning Commission’s consideration.

The Planning Review indicated that the requested B-3 zoning is in conformance with the Master plan for Land Use designation of Community Commercial for the property. The Novi 2020 Master Plan for Land Use recommends a "four corners" commercial development pattern for the intersection of Grand River Avenue and Meadowbrook Road. The proposed development of this northeast corner with a use permitted in the B-3 zoning district could be compatible with the approved drug store use on the northwest corner of Grand River Avenue and Meadowbrook. The B-3 zoning district is the zoning district in which vehicle sales showrooms are expected to be located, as a permitted use, and outdoor sales as a Special Land Use. The latest version of the draft Gateway East Ordinance was included in the Planning Commission’s packets this evening, since it had been discussed that this parcel on the northeast corner, along with the parcel on the southeast corner may be considered for inclusion in the new GE District.

Public water and sanitary sewer are both available to serve the future development of the subject property adjacent Grand River Avenue and Meadowbrook Road.

The woodlands map indicates that the site does not appear to contain regulated woodlands. The city’s wetlands map shows that there are wetlands on the north and east sides of the property. Additional information will be reviewed at the time of Preliminary Site Plan review for the location and treatment of the wetlands on site.

The Traffic Review indicated a rezoning traffic study was submitted and reviewed by the Traffic Engineer. Comparisons of potential traffic generated for possible uses of the property under different zoning classifications are included for consideration.

The requested action this evening, is that the Commission hold a Public Hearing regarding this zoning map amendment and make a recommendation to the City Council for approval or denial of this rezoning request.

Member Shroyer said that he is employed by General Motors and asked the Planning Commission if they wanted him to recuse himself. Member Ruyle said that he receives a pension from General Motors. A quick voice vote from the Planning Commission determined that no one on the Commission thought Member Shroyer should recuse himself.

Matthew Quinn represented Gary Wood, the owner of the proposed Hummer of Novi dealership. He introduced Gary Wood, Project Coordinator Scott Riddle, and Alpine Engineering representatives. Mr. Quinn said that Mr. Wood has been in the dealership business for 18 years, which includes thirteen years in Southfield at the Southfield Jeep location and eight at Southfield Hummer. He said that Nick Banda, the Director of Planning in Southfield, wrote Novi a letter detailing what kind of community leader that Mr. Wood represents.

Mr. Quinn said that Mr. Wood was instructed by General Motors to find a location within one mile of Grand River Avenue and Haggerty – in either in Novi or Farmington Hills. Mr. Wood’s preferred location is this proposed location, even though it is zoned I-1. Mr. Wood was quick to note that nothing has ever been built on this parcel, and thought that his six million dollar project might be welcome on this site in Novi. Mr. Quinn continued that the site has its problems: it was previously used as a dumping ground for soils. The economics of this site reveal that about $500,000 will have to be spent to prepare the ground for development. He said that there are very few businesses that would be able to spend that money to prepare the site.

Mr. Quinn said that this project would be in proximity to the Gateway East Zoning District. If Mr. Wood brought his project to this property he could set the tone for the whole corner. Ultimately, the corner parcel would bring an upscale architectural look to the gateway entrance. This dealership is a boutique-type dealership, which is why Mr. Wood would be able to design the building using the Gateway facades and elevations. It will be a 21,000 square foot building. Mr. Quinn said this use is in compliance with the Master Plan, which shows the property zoned as community commercial. Mr. Quinn noted that the Applicant would return at a later date to request the Special Land Use permit for outdoor sales.

Mr. Quinn said this project would assist the City in achieving a four-cornered commercial intersection. He also said that Novi’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) indicates that Meadowbrook is planned for expansion north of Grand River. This project is slated for the same time as the Hummer Dealership would be built. Mr. Quinn explained that the timing of this dealership is meant to coincide with the introduction of the H3 in December of 2004. Therefore, Mr. Wood needs to have a Preliminary Site Plan approved by October 31, 2003. By January 31, 2004 he would need to have Final Site Plan approval. The project would have to be completed by December 31, 2004. Mr. Quinn said that his client does not have time to wait for the Gateway Ordinance, which this Hummer plan meets 95% of that Ordinance’s intent.

Mr. Quinn said that the Hummer dealership has the support of the Novi business community. He said they have brought over twenty letters of approval, and they gathered signatures from residents in the area. This could be a win-win plan for the City and he asked that the Planning Commission confirm the Planning Department’s advice and recommend this plan to City Council for approval.

Mr. Scott Riddle told the Planning Commission that this is an important project for the City of Novi. This is not a typical dealership – it is a premium franchise that attracts affluent, professional clients. The design will become the benchmark for the other corners that have yet to be designed. It will create a smooth transition to the east and to the west. Mr. Riddle said they have updated their proposed site plan and he showed it to the Planning Commission so that they understand how the parcel would be developed. He reiterated that this project would be the eastern entryway to the Gateway District. The plan meets 100% of the City’s requirements, and 95% of the Gateway Ordinance requirements (the 5% deficit represents the fact that the building is over 20,000 square feet – it is 21,000 square feet). The setback, use of the land, open space and parking requirements are all satisfied by this plan. He asked for the Planning Commission’s recommendation this evening so that the project could meet the time commitments set forth by General Motors.

Chair Nagy asked Member Kocan to read the correspondence relating to this Public Hearing. Member Kocan read the following:

APPROVALS

Nicholas Banda, Director of Planning, Southfield: Stated that Gary Wood is an excellent businessman and that Novi should welcome him without reservation.

Robert Fenton, 31800 Northwestern Hwy, Ste. 204, Farmington Hills: Stated it would economically energize the area.

Peter DeSteiger, Ray Electric, 12500 Hall Road, Sterling Hts, MI: Approved with no comments.

Daniel Weiss, 41001 Grand River: Stated that this upscale commercial use would benefit Novi in several ways.

Signed Letter of Petition supporting the Hummer Dealership:

David Nona, N & Y Properties; Karen Angelosante, Italian Epicure; Ken McLaughlin, Thomasville McLaughlin Center; Dan Weiss, Weiss Construction Co.; Rick Noel, Atlas Auto; Fred Ansara, Diamond Castle; Robert Brateman, Brateman Medical Center; Tim Herrington, Keford Collision; Brian Larson, Larson Jewelry Design; Peter Paisley, Local Color; Ten C. Minasian, Minasian Development Corporation; Dan Dempsey, 40875 Grand River; Chris Cagle, Glenda Garden Center; D. Dan Kahn, Production Tool.

OBJECTIONS

John J. O’Brien, O’Brien Sullivan Funeral Home: Said that a dealership is not an amicable use for the area.

Chair Nagy asked whether anyone from the audience would like to speak.

Wayne Hogan, Novi: Said that the parking is not barrier-free because the spaces abut a curb and there is only one-side access.

Chair Nagy closed the Public Hearing.

Member Shroyer confirmed that another Public Hearing would be held for Hummer’s request for a Special Land Use. He said that in Section 1501.4 makes reference to no trucks in the showroom and he asked how that would affect Hummer. Mr. Gary Wood responded that the H1 and H2 are Class 3 trucks, but the H3 is a standard light duty truck, which will represent about 70% of their sales volume.

Member Shroyer said that under Section 1502 recreational vehicles are discussed. He asked whether the H1 and H2 would qualify because of this Section. Ms. McBeth responded that the Planning Department interpreted the Ordinance to mean trucks that are not passenger vehicles. Mr. Schultz said that the decision rests with the Planning Commission in the first instance. He said that the Ordinance was written before the advent of the Hummer vehicle so the Ordinance should be interpreted in that spirit. Essentially the Hummer is a passenger vehicle that is sold to the public market. He said that the reference to truck relates to construction-type trucks, but he said that ultimately the decision lies with the Planning Commission.

Member Shroyer thought there might be better locations for the Hummer dealership but he does not want to lose this business. He also thought that the northeast and southeast corners should not be considered part of the Gateway District, but they should complement the District, which he believes this plan does. He does not think that B-3 is the right zoning, but he understands that B-3 is necessary for a dealership. Ms. McBeth confirmed that B-3 allows for a showroom and outdoor sales. Member Shroyer supports the project but would want a positive recommendation to state that if a dealership is not built on the parcel the land would revert back to its original zoning. Mr. Schultz said that the motion couldn’t really be stated as such, but it could be done in the form of a Development Agreement, which City Council could handle. He reminded the Planning Commission that this is a rezoning and not a site plan recommendation.

Member Sprague liked the project and thought it might invigorate some additional projects down the road. He voiced concern about what would happen in the future if the dealership failed to materialize or closed down and the City is stuck with B-3 zoning for that corner. He too, would like to recommend that some kind of appropriate stipulation be attached to the rezoning that would limit the use of B-3 zoning on the land.

Member Sprague said that he did not necessarily support the Gateway District, but he wondered if the east corners were added to that District would these parcels then become GE instead of B-3. Mr. Schultz said that at this meeting the Planning Commission could only consider existing districts (B-3 or even less intense business districts), and that there are no mechanisms under Michigan law that clearly and definitely can revert a parcel’s zoning, but the Planning Commission and City Council can proactively reconsider rezoning this property at a later date (although the property’s owner could come forward with another B-3 plan until a rezoning occurred). Mr. Schultz continued that a Development Agreement, although an imperfect tool, could also be considered.

Member Sprague said that since the Planning Commission’s motion is only a recommendation to City Council, he asked whether the motion’s language could be dressed up with the stipulations they would like attached to this rezoning request. Mr. Schultz said that the Planning Commission could do so if they wished. Member Sprague supported the request and suggested that the recommendation include language that the zoning reverts if the property is not developed with this dealership.

Member Ruyle supported the project. He does not support the Gateway District either. He said that if this development goes forward, the rest of the projects in the area would have to coincide with it, and that is a positive feature.

Motioned by Member Ruyle, supported by Member Shroyer:

Member Paul asked why the banquet facility (that looked at this site in the past) did not go forward. Ms. McBeth responded that her understanding was that the project was approved but there were soil problems. She thought that soil has since been brought onto the site. Member Paul asked what specifically was meant by her use of the phrase, "poor soil conditions." Ms. McBeth said that the cost of developing the facility would have been too great. She did not know if that Applicant looked at various alternatives such as foundations being put down beneath the soils brought to the site, or if they considered hauling the soils off.

Member Paul liked the aesthetics of the site plan but she did not like the B-3 zoning. She thought that something could go before the Implementation Committee to consider how this plan could be approved without the B-3 zoning, because she does not want another strip mall. She cannot support the rezoning, but she does support the project.

Member Ruyle asked Chair Nagy if he should have been more distinct in his motion, i.e., Hummer dealership instead of just dealership. Mr. Evancoe responded that the language could be clarified to say that, "the proposed dealership would be consistent with the exhibits and renderings presented this evening." Member Ruyle asked to change the motion’s language to include that verbiage, and Member Shroyer, the seconder of the motion, agreed to the change.

Member Markham could not support the motion because she does not believe the project belongs at this location. She said that there are a number of dealerships in this community and they are all assets. They too are high-end dealerships but they do not belong on Grand River as it approaches the planned downtown area. She thought the B-3 rezoning that also requires a Special Land Use permit is not right for that corner.

Member Papp liked the design. He confirmed with the Applicant that they will not have a small test track on the property. He supported the motion because there are a number of dealerships in the City, even one on the corner of Grand River and Wixom Road. He thought that a dealership would be a better use than an industrial building and would bring more people into the City.

Member Kocan said that the Applicant admitted that Hummers are trucks, and the Ordinance says no trucks. She said that the Gateway Ordinance, which may or not be adopted, abuts this property. There is a perception that what the City is trying to do is make this corner an entranceway into the City. The Gateway Ordinance is maximizing building size up to 20,000 square feet for the aesthetics. She thought that the grouping of dealerships along Haggerty has worked well for the City.

Member Kocan read the minutes of the City Council’s discussion of the Gateway Ordinance, and she does not believe there will be support for B-3 on this corner. She said that the Planning Commission could make the recommendation to go to B-3, but she doesn’t think there would be any City Council support. She said the problem with having a picture of the proposed site plan is that with a rezoning, there shouldn’t be a submitted site plan or picture because in the Planning Commission’s review of a rezoning, they need to consider all uses allowed in that zoning classification, not just what the Applicant is proposing. She believes that the Planning Commission would not want a car wash or a tattoo parlor, both of which would be allowed with the B-3 zoning. She said that she is in limbo, because recommending B-3 is difficult, and recommending another business zoning would not help the Applicant. She noted that the Master Plan suggests commercial on this corner, and she agrees that industrial is not right for that corner.

Member Kocan said there is not agreement among the Planning Commission or the City Council about whether the east side of this corner should be part of the Gateway Ordinance. She said that verbiage may be added to the Gateway Ordinance that would allow this type of development, but no one knows the timing of the Gateway Ordinance.

Mr. Evancoe told the Planning Commission that the Gateway Ordinance will have its (second) second City Council reading on Monday, September 8, 2003. A sub-committee of the City Council has been working with Mr. Fisher on resolving some of the issues of the Gateway Ordinance. He said that it is possible for the Gateway Ordinance to pass on September 8, 2003.

Chair Nagy said that this is a difficult decision because from Haggerty to Meadowbrook, Grand River is coming along very nicely. She thought the Applicant is proposing a nice plan, but the Planning Commission must consider the zoning, not the proposed plan. She also had a problem with the truck issue.

Chair Nagy asked if the condominium owners in Gateway were notified. Mr. Evancoe responded that the legal notice was sent to N&Y Properties. He said that there are six occupied residences in the community, three of which are not yet on the tax role. The other three were contacted earlier in the day, at the request of a City Council member, even though they were beyond the legal 500-foot notification limit. They were notified of this evening’s meeting.

Chair Nagy stated that she learned a lesson after the Planning Commission she sat on approved the Jaguar dealership. After it was approved, they added more parking, there was contaminated soil that was not reported to the City, and they went to the ZBA to get approval to move their building closer to Haggerty. Now the Jaguar dealership is not anything like the conceptual drawing that they originally presented. Now all that can be seen on that corner is a parking lot full of cars. She is concerned with the visual image of all the cars so close to the road, and in reality this project will also put cars right up to the road. She believes there are properties available on Haggerty Road that should be considered for this project. She said that this is a tough decision. She is not sure that the aesthetics of this project are right for this corner, and the use may be too intense. Considering that there is a future plan to widen Grand River, there will be even more problems in that area. Chair Nagy would like the Applicant to be a part of this City, but she is not convinced that this is an appropriate location for a Hummer dealership.

Member Ruyle reminded the Planning Commission that Marty Feldman is a dealership right on Grand River, and is just down the street from this location. Member Ruyle also stated that the Gateway Ordinance does not include the east side of this corner and therefore should not be a part of this discussion. Additionally, he said, there is no Gateway Ordinance at this time and should not be considered at all.

Chair Nagy said that she is not considering the Gateway Ordinance because it has not yet been adopted. She also said she was not overlooking the fact that there is a dealership right down the road on Grand River.

Motion failed 4-4 (Yes: Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague; No: Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Paul).

Member Kocan said that she is on the record as objecting to the motion. She asked Mr. Schultz if the motion could be reconsidered, stating that although it was her original intent not to be in support of the B-3 with the language that is in the original motion, she understood that a different outcome would allow this plan to move along to City Council instead of going into limbo.

Moved by Member Kocan, supported by Member Shroyer:

Motion carried 5-3 (Yes: Kocan, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague; No: Markham, Nagy, Paul).

Member Markham asked Member Kocan why the Planning Commission should reconsider the motion. She responded that she thought that some kind of recommendation should go forward to City Council. Mr. Schultz stated that the Planning Commission had fulfilled the requirement of holding a Public Hearing and that no recommendation, positive or negative, needs to go forward. He said that now the Planning Commission needs to revote on the original motion.

Motion failed 4-4 (Yes: Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague; No: Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Paul).

Chair Nagy said that no recommendation will go forward to City Council. Mr. Schmitt noted that the motion sheet that goes before City Council will show the failed vote on the Rezoning 18.631 motion.

The Planning Commission provided their changes to the minutes.

Moved by Member Ruyle, supported by Member Sprague:

Chair Nagy said that it is an easier process if the meetings are consistently held on, for instance, the second and fourth Wednesdays of the month. She asked the other Commissioners if they felt the same. Member Kocan noticed that in April a meeting has been scheduled for Easter week, and while she understands that the calendar was designed to avoid the same week of City Council meetings, she would prefer that meeting be moved to April 7, 2004, which would still provide for two weeks between meetings. It was noted that Public Hearings could still be held on April 7. Mr. Evancoe stated that he chose April 14^th so as to avoid City Council, but he would readily accept the change to April 7, 2004.

Member Markham agreed with Chair Nagy, that she prefers the scheduling to remain consistent, as she has commitments on the opposite Wednesdays. She recommended a first/third Wednesday schedule or second/fourth Wednesday schedule.

Member Kocan said that there seems to be less conflict with the second/fourth Wednesday schedule. This would make a meeting fall on Easter week, and leave only one meeting in July for Public Hearings.

Moved by Member Ruyle, seconded by Member Shroyer:

The Planning Commission determined the with the second/fourth schedule there are twelve weeks in which their meetings fall in the same week as City Council, and on the first/third schedule there are ten weeks. The second/fourth schedule has less holiday conflicts.

Member Ruyle asked Mr. Evancoe to provide him with the necessary details for attending the Citizen Planner program sponsored by Oakland County and MSUE.

Member Kocan suggested that the Planning Department attendees should go to these seminars at the annual MSP Conference:

Planning Under Michigan’s Planning Enabling Acts

From TV to the Internet: Direct Access to Residents via Electronic Media

Issues Shaping Our Community Landscapes

Member Shroyer indicated that he would like to go to the conference. Member Ruyle suggested that Mr. Evancoe speak with Mr. Helwig about getting more money to send more Commissioners to the conference. Member Ruyle noted that he too, would like to attend.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Moved by Member Ruyle, seconded by Member Markham:

Motion carried 8-0. The meeting adjourned at 12:00 a.m.

MON 09/08/03 CITY COUNCIL 7:30 PM WED 09/17/03 PLANNING COMMISSION 7:30 PM

MON 09/22/03 CITY COUNCIL 7:30 PM WED 09/24/03 MASTER PLAN COMMITTEE 6:00 PM

WED 10/01/03 PC TRAINING SEMINAR 6:00 PM WED 10/01/03 PLANNING COMMISSION 7:30 PM

TUE 10/07/03 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM WED 11/19/03 RULES COMMITTEE MEETING6:15 PM

Transcribed by Jane Schimpf, September 24, 2003 Signature on File

Approved: October 1, 2003 Donna Jernigan, Planning Assistant