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

Present: Members Andrew Gutman, Victor Cassis, Lynn Kocan, David Lipski, Mark Pehrson, Lowell Sprague, Wayne Wrobel

Absent: Members John Avdoulos (excused), Richard Gaul (excused)

Also Present: Barbara McBeth, Director of Planning; Tim Schmitt, Planner; Darcy Schmitt, Planner; Lance Shipman, Landscape Architect; Ben Croy, Civil Engineer; Dr. Don Tilton, Wetland Consultant; Doris Hill, Woodland Consultant; Bill Stimpson, Traffic Consultant; Tom Schultz, City Attorney

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

Chair Kocan said that the Public Hearings would be heard simultaneously for Agenda items three and four.

Moved by Member Sprague, seconded by Member Pehrson:

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Chair Kocan said that the Planning Commission received a letter from the Oakland County Board of Commissioners regarding a rezoning to a Mobile Home District in Commerce Township. The subject property is located on Pontiac Trail between Beck and West Park roads. The area was already master planned for a mobile home community and is located next to a residential multiple property. The rezoning was approved, as the County did not see a conflict with Novi’s Master Plan.

The Implementation Committee will meet on October 18, 2004 at 6:00 p.m.

Ms. McBeth told the Planning Commission of recent City Council action. On September 27, 2004 the draft Master Plan was discussed and the Council forwarded comments on to the Planning Commission; the Master Plan and Zoning Committee has reviewed them already. The Public Hearing for the Master Plan is scheduled for October 27, 2004. City Council approved with contingencies, the Final Site Plan for Knightsbridge Gate for 348 single family detached homes on 74 acres. This approval was based on a Consent Judgment pertaining to Paragon, which is why the plan did not come before the Planning Commission.

On October 4, 2004 City Council approved the Final Site Plan for the Townhomes at Liberty Park, the multi-family phase associated with the Sandstone Consent Judgment. This phase represents about 9.87 of the 87 acres. 130 townhouse style units were approved. Also, City Council denied the Eldridge Rezoning for the corner of Twelve Mile and Novi Road, the one-plus acre request for B-3 from residential.

Consideration on the request of Howard Friedlaender of HEFCO Properties, for approval of a one year Preliminary Site Plan extension. The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Meadowbrook Road and Twelve Mile in Section 14. The Applicant proposes a two-story building with 46,659 square feet on 4.68 acres of land. The property is zoned OST (Office Service).

Consideration on the request of Raymond Galper for a third one year extension of Final Site Plan approval and Special Land Use approval. The subject property is located north of Grand River Avenue between Haggerty Road and Seeley Road in Section 24. The Applicant proposes a light industrial building containing 17,451 square feet on 2.97 acres. The property is zoned I-1 (Light Industrial).

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Sprague:

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Toll Brothers Inc., for Preliminary Site Plan, Storm Water Management Plan, and Wetland Permit approval. The subject property is located north of Ten Mile and west of Wixom Road, Section 19, in the R-A (Residential Acreage) District developed under an RUD Agreement. The Applicant is proposing to construct 19 single-family residential units in the Island Lake of Novi subdivision. The subject property is approximately 26.523 acres.

Planner Tim Schmitt located the property on an aerial map. To its north is Drakes Bay Drive, the southern entrance into Island Lake. To its south is Ten Mile; to the east are Wixom Road and a small outlot at the corner of Wixom Road and Ten Mile. To the west is the future site of Oak Pointe Church. All properties are zoned R-A. To the southwest is Quail Hollow, which is zoned R-1. The Master Plan calls for single family residential in the area. The new Master Plan will update the Quail Hollow property to single family residential, from "quasi public golf course."

There are light quality woodlands along the easterly edge of the property, running along the Novi-Lyon drain. There are wetlands associated with this area as well. No trees are planned for removal, and there are only minor impacts (associated with the discharge from the detention basin in the Novi-Lyon drain) to the wetlands.

This plan proposes a single cul-de-sac running south from Drakes Bay Drive. The drive has been redesigned to the width required by the Ordinance. This is a better design than the drive approved through the RUD which required an emergency access onto Ten Mile or into the Oakpointe Church site. 19 homes are proposed.

All disciplines have approved of this site plan. There are minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. Most notably, the berm along Ten Mile has been designed to span from the west border to the detention basin. Either the Applicant must redesign the berm to reach the easterly border or the Planning Commission must grant a waiver for this design, based on the various site constraints. Mr. Schmitt noted that the black dotted line on the plan is the future 60-foot right of way. While this plan does not require replacement trees, the Applicant is providing additional trees on this site to compensate for the deficiencies elsewhere in Island Lake. 26 additional trees can be applied to the overall replacement credits. The remainder of the 57 trees is required.

Jason Rickard from Toll Brothers represented the Applicant. He said that they will extend the berm by reconfiguring the pond to accommodate the berm.

Chair Kocan closed the Public Hearing after determining no one from the audience wished to speak.

Member Pehrson asked Dr. Tilton about the discharge calculations for the site. Dr. Tilton replied that the request for additional discharge information is standard at the Preliminary Site Plan stage. He did not anticipate a problem on the site.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Chair Kocan asked the Applicant if he understood all of the comments made in the reviews. Mr. Rickard stated that Toll Brothers was willing to abide by all the comments.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Amson Dembs for Preliminary Site Plan approval, Woodland Permit, Wetland Permit and Storm Water Management Plan. The subject property is located in Section 9 on the northeast corner of Twelve Mile and West Park Drive in the I-1 (Light Industrial) and I-2 (General Industrial) districts. The Applicant is proposing to construct a new roadway and utilities to serve a future industrial park on this property. The subject property is approximately 49.75 acres.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth located the subject property on an aerial map. The land is primarily vacant, with one house as shown on the aerial. The property to the east is developed with the Steelcreete Company. To the north is vacant land containing wooded wetlands. On the west side of West Park Drive is Great Oaks Landscaping. Immediately to the southwest of this property is the West Park Booster Station, proposed to be located on the corner property to increase water pressure in west Novi. To the south, on the south side of Twelve Mile, are vacant land and single family homes.

The subject property is zoned I-1, light industrial, on the south portion of the property and I-2, general industrial, for the remainder of the property. Similar zoning exists to the east and west, with the frontage along Twelve Mile zoned light industrial and the north parts of the property zoned I-2, general industrial. To the north, the land is zoned I-2, general industrial to the CSX Railroad tracks. On the south side of Twelve Mile the zoning is R-A, Residential Acreage, and OST, Office Service Technology, for the parcels proposed to be developed with medical office buildings.

The Woodlands map shows light woodlands, primarily along the north property line and in two fingers extending south from the large woodland area to the north. There are woodlands on the northeast section of the site.

The Wetlands map shows wetlands in the vicinity. Both the woodlands and wetlands were reviewed with this proposal, and more accurate depictions of the regulated woodlands and wetlands have been provided by the Applicant and reviewed by the City’s Woodland and Wetlands Consultants.

The submitted site plan shows that the Applicant is proposing to construct a new east-west roadway that ends in a cul-de-sac. The Stormwater Management Plan is also shown on this plan, which includes a basin on the north side of the site and a wetland remediation area on the northwest area of the site. The north woods will be preserved. Plans and information have been submitted in accordance with the relatively new changes to the Zoning Ordinance detailing requirements for site plan submittals for road plans and utilities. (Section 2516.1.e of the Ordinance). The Applicant has submitted a site plan for the development of the roads, utilities, and storm water detention basin (Sheet S-01 provided in the Planning Commission packet).

Also submitted in accordance with the Ordinance is Sheet A-01, a Conceptual Development Plan, which is illustrative only for purposes of justification for the location of the roads and utilities. The Planning Commission is asked to review the submitted information, and consider approval of the Preliminary Site Plan only; consideration of the potential future site plan is illustrative only, and approval of the site plan shall not constitute approval of any development outside the roads and utilities. No buildings are proposed at this time.

A new roadway, Dylan Drive, is proposed to be constructed from West Park Drive to allow future development of an industrial park. Individual sites will also have access from Dylan Drive, Twelve Mile, or West Park Drive. A storm water detention basin is proposed near the northeast property line, adjacent to an existing wooded area near the north property line. Wetland mitigation is proposed along the northwest part of the property, and the Engineer, Woodland and Wetland Consultants have worked with the Applicant to design these areas to preserve the best quality woodlands on the site.

The Planning Review indicates the plans meet Ordinance requirements, and approval is recommended. This is a revised Preliminary Site Plan that addresses a number of Staff and Consultant concerns. The wetland mitigation area, and storm water detention basin and existing sanitary sewer line have been adjusted to allow preservation of the best quality woodlands on the north side of the property.

The Landscaping Review identified areas to be addressed at the time individual site plans are submitted for review.

The Traffic Review indicated that there is a need for a City Council Waiver of the Design and Construction Standards for the design of the temporary access drive. This waiver is needed only if the proposed temporary access drive is to remain gravel, less than 18 feet in width and within an easement narrower than 25 feet. If the temporary access drive is corrected on the Final Site Plan to meet Ordinance standards, the Design and Construction Standard waiver will not be necessary.

The Engineering and Fire Marshal’s reviews revealed that there is a need for a City Council Waiver for the watermain exceeding 800 feet in length without a second point of connection. The watermain is proposed to be extended easterly along Dylan Drive and terminate at the east end of the cul-de-sac. Engineers have told us that a looped water system is preferable to provide adequate water pressure and volume. The Engineering Division would recommend the Council variance for the watermain exceeding 800 feet without a second point of connection, if two criteria are provided, as indicated on page two of the Engineer Review. One criterion is that prior to any site plans being approved for buildings on parcels six, seven or eight, a looped secondary connection to Twelve Mile must be constructed. Secondly, data must be provided to the Fire Marshal and Engineering Division that demonstrate the end of the watermain, as proposed, is capable of producing 4000 gallons per minute as required by the Ordinance.

No Façade Review was required, since no buildings are proposed at this time.

Dan LeClair from Alpine Engineering, Ryan Dembs from Amson Dembs, and Bruce Brickman from General Development represented the Applicant. Mr. LeClair showed the Planning Commission an illustration of a possible future building layout of the site. There are no known occupants for this industrial park at this time.

Mr. LeClair said that the Applicant first proposed the temporary gravel access drive but has since acknowledged that the drive must be asphalt. The Applicant proposes to place the watermain extension across Dylan Drive and leave it in place until such time a building unit on the cul-de-sac comes forward. This will allow the watermain’s incorporation into that site plan where it is most efficient. Water for a Fire Department connection will be available wherever buildings are proposed. A loop back to Twelve Mile will be designed where it is most efficient for the development.

Mr. LeClair said that they have met with the Staff and Consultants on several occasions regarding woodlands, traffic and wetlands. The focus of their meetings has evolved around preservation of the natural features. In particular, the detention basin has been pulled away from the woodlands along the north property line. Wetland mitigation areas are proposed to be placed next to existing wetland areas. The area between the detention basin and the mitigation area will separate the proposed development from the existing natural features. Much of the development is going to occur south of the demarcation line. The Applicant will try to allocate the appropriate amount space for the mitigation.

Chair Kocan asked if the berming would be done development-wide or building by building. Mr. LeClair responded that they would like to address the berm area once the site plans are becoming a reality, particularly along the east property line where this park abuts the adjacent industrial area.

Chair Kocan closed the Public Hearing upon determining that no one from the audience wished to speak.

Member Cassis asked where the access points would be for sites one and two, the lots that front Twelve Mile. Mr. LeClair said that at this time they were not proposing any access locations, but the intent is for these lots to have access from Twelve Mile. These lots would have interconnectivity between them and with the parcels on Dylan Drive, which will be accomplished through joint access easements. Specifically, the Twelve Mile parcels will have to be approved for Twelve Mile access through Oakland County.

Member Cassis asked about parcels three and four. Mr. LeClair said their access would likely be from West Park Drive. These decisions will be based on the site plan layout. Member Cassis was just trying to understand how many curb cuts are associated with this industrial park.

Member Sprague asked Mr. LeClair to clarify parcel three’s drive. Mr. LeClair responded that they do not envision a Twelve Mile entrance for that lot.

Member Sprague asked how the Applicant would react to Oakland County denying curb cuts onto Twelve Mile. Mr. LeClair said that they haven’t even asked for curb cuts yet because they don’t have specific sites designed yet. He did not anticipate a problem.

Member Sprague asked whether there is room on Twelve Mile for these anticipated curb cuts. Civil Engineer Ben Croy said there is a significant amount of square footage along Twelve Mile. There may be spacing issues with three, but one or two would easily be accommodated.

Member Sprague confirmed that there is a traffic light at West Park and Twelve Mile.

Member Sprague asked whether it was advisable for parcels five, six and seven, to interconnect with one and two. It may affect how the traffic leaves the industrial park. Mr. Croy said that right now the most favorable design discussed is having the connectivity available for emergency vehicle access. At some point in time the temporary access will be replaced by a meandering access through the parking areas. The interconnectivity will not promote cut-through traffic between Twelve Mile and West Park Drive. The pass-through traffic will travel through the stoplight at the main intersection. The internal and employee traffic could access either way to reduce some of the intersection traffic.

Member Sprague asked about parcels eight and nine. Mr. Croy said that the City will have the authority to require interconnectivity in locations they find necessary. The Twelve Mile/Dylan Road connection will be a requirement. Where necessary, they will require interconnectivity between parcels.

Member Sprague asked whether the drives will line up or whether spacing waivers will be necessary. Mr. Croy said that this is a difficult task, and the first site plan in will get first choice in drive placement. The other site plans will have to place their drives accordingly. Some waivers will likely be necessary.

City Attorney Tom Schultz told the Planning Commission that the Applicant could comment on whether Amson Dembs intends to provide interconnectivity as the property develops. Admittedly, he said, the plan before the Planning Commission is conceptual. Mr. Dembs said for the record that they would cooperate and will put the drives in as needed.

Member Sprague asked about the mitigation area north of the lot, and north of the basin. Ms. McBeth said that they have requested the conservation easement. Mr. LeClair said that the time was appropriate to provide that easement, or at least at by the time of the first site plan submittal. He thought that Amson Dembs was willing to provide one. Mr. Schultz said that requiring it here is appropriate because there is a wetland permit being requested. Mr. LeClair showed the woodland area and the area around the county drain that would likely be included in the conservation easement. That, he said, buttons up all development issues north of proposed development.

The Applicant said that there is room in the north for one development. There is a wetland pocket in the corner that would be addressed at the time of Preliminary Site Plan submittal. That area is wooded. The woodland quality is the same as the rest of the property.

Member Sprague asked about waiting for parcels six, seven and eight before the Applicant would loop the water main. He wondered how that affects parcels one and two, if they develop first. Mr. LeClair said that if those develop first, the watermain will be stubbed through the interior of those two parcels and there will be an avenue to extend that watermain up to Dylan Drive. Most likely, if those develop first, there will be two connections to Twelve Mile and a stub for the interconnection to Dylan. Once the first of those Dylan lots is developed, the connection would be made. At that point they would have a layout of how the properties will develop. Water for parcels one and two will come off of Twelve Mile.

Member Sprague asked about manhole covers being in excess of 350 feet apart. Mr. LeClair said this would be handled at the engineering phase. They will work with the Engineering staff on these issues.

Member Sprague asked about the asphalt road. Mr. LeClair said it would be built to the standards of the Ordinance.

Chair Kocan said it was difficult to separate site plan issues from the road issues. She asked Dr. Tilton about the mitigation areas. Dr. Tilton said that his plan is to take care of all of the mitigation areas for the entire park at this time. All of the wetlands shown on the plan have been looked at. The wetlands that are out in the middle of the plan will not function as ecological systems after the site is developed. If they are filled and replaced at a ratio of 1.5:1, they would fit in the area up adjacent to the larger wetland. This will be a much more sustainable ecological unit, fed by filters, stormwater from the detention basin. The Applicant was has worked on with Dr. Tilton on this plan for filling the existing wetlands and ensuring that the site is accommodated for wetlands elsewhere on the site. He would like to have all of these issues nailed down before Final Site Plan submittal.

Chair Kocan asked what the current conditions of the wetlands were. Dr. Tilton said that right now they are all dry. They are isolated out in the middle of fields. Some are small forested wetlands, with an overstory of box elder and buckthorn. If the road was developed and the wetlands remained in tact with typical industrial landscape surrounding them, they would lose their function. They would lose their wildlife habitat function. They would no longer be stormwater storage areas. He said they could be successfully moved to an area where the wildlife will benefit from their location. From an environmental planning standpoint, this makes a lot more sense.

Chair Kocan said there were comments in the reviews that ensured that this plan’s approval does not constitute future site plan approval. She said this applies to woodlands, access drives, curb cuts, etc.

Chair Kocan asked about the temporary access drive. Ms. McBeth said that the drive would be in place until other site plans are developed throughout the park that would provide for other access points. The road exceeds 800 feet, so they must provide this temporary access.

Chair Kocan said that the property has both I-1 and I-2 land. Lots one, two and three are I-1. Everything north is I-2. She asked how these properties are planned for development. Mr. Brickman responded that currently, given the type of product that exists in the area, the cost of land and the market conditions, this park would not be likely to develop as a lumber yard or outdoor distribution area. These lots will house higher tech, light industrial buildings. They will be built with brick and glass – a high end product with a fair amount of office use, light assembly, technology, R&D. He cannot preclude that someone who is R&D may or may not need to store outside. They could have to store three cars for automotive testing. Generally speaking, these would be clean uses. Mr. Brickman did not envision the need to berm the site to hide the buildings. They are very high end in appearance.

Chair Kocan asked that the Applicant maintain a consistency in determining the setbacks for each building. Mr. Brickman said it would be a disadvantage to them if they didn’t make use of the smaller setbacks allowed on a forty-acre site. The anticipated setback is more in touch with a light industrial setback anyway. Ms. McBeth concurred with Chair Kocan that this reduced setback applies to the I-2 properties.

Member Pehrson noted that there is increasing community concern for the longevity of the City’s wetlands and woodlands. Dr. Tilton said that this site plan incorporates proactive thinking that addresses those problems. He also said that the City’s overall Stormwater Management Plan did anticipate the storage of water in the forested wetland. Working with Engineering, Dr. Tilton surmised that was not a good idea, based on some of the historical trends. Therefore, this site was developed with its own stormwater storage system that releases the water at an agricultural runoff rate, and does not let the water accumulate in the wooded wetland.

To the specifics of what community residents are seeing in their wetlands now, Dr. Tilton said a couple of things are happening. The emerald ash borer is severely impacting wetlands. As much as 40% of Novi’s ashes are dead. These trees may be as big as 36 inches in diameter, and the borers are killing them. There is also more mortality of elm trees, probably from the drought this fall. Michigan had a wet spring, but the fall drought stressed the trees out.

Dr. Tilton said that there were past engineering practices that did not take into consideration the hydrologic impact on wetlands, and consequently the City has lost a number of trees. This project represents a lot of good thinking and a lot of protective measures that the Applicant has agreed to implement to protect the forested wetlands.

Member Pehrson said that he was leery of the uppermost parcel because of the density of woodlands on that site. Ms. McBeth said that originally there was no development planned for that parcel. She said that this addition to the plan has not been studied as closely as the rest of the site, and the Staff and the Woodland Consultant share that concern.

Member Sprague asked if it was appropriate to ask for that area be part of the Conservation Easement. Ms. McBeth said that the area has not yet been evaluated. She did not think that the original proposal included this land in the preservation area.

Woodland Consultant Doris Hill of Vilican Leman walked the site. She said that the wood is similar to the preservation area. In the area where they propose wetland mitigation, they took special effort to save a stand of bitternut trees. The northern portion has not been surveyed, but she suspected that the tree quality was the same. She saw a beech maple stand toward the road. The mature canopy is 30-75 years old. There are large old growth trees but not in the 36-48" diameter range. It is a medium quality woodland. It is being encroached by an invasive species. The undercanopy is fairly clean and looks quite good. It should be saved. This proposed lot was part of the land she requested be part of the Conservation Easement.

Mr. Schultz stated that the Easement will be resolved at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. The authority to require it will come in connection with Dr. Tilton’s review of the wetland mitigation. The area proposed will have to be roughly proportional to the land being lost. There must be agreement between the City and the Applicant on this number.

Member Sprague said that the area is defined for the proposed mitigation and does not include this land. However, if it turns out that more mitigation land is needed it seems natural to include this proposed lot, because that land is available. Mr. Schultz said that it could be available; this depends on the actual development of the industrial site. As a result of this roadway plan, there will be some negotiated conservation easement based on Dr. Tilton’s review.

Member Cassis asked how the woodland issue can be addressed in the motion with this issue looming. Chair Kocan said that this roadway approval does not constitute an approval of any further development outside of the roads and utilities. The Applicant has been advised of this and has heard the Planning Commission’s comments.

Moved by Member Sprague, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Moved by Member Sprague, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Moved by Member Sprague, seconded by Member Pehrson:

The Applicant said they would like to discuss whether or not development will be allowed on the northerly parcel in question. Mr. Schmitt said that technically, the only woodland plan before the Planning Commission tonight is for the trees being replaced relating to the impact of the proposed road. There is a request in the review letter for a Conservation Easement and from the City’s perspective, that is not necessarily going to be accomplished in connection with the woodland review. As additional tree permits are requested during site plan review, that is something that the Planning Commission is going to see as those come forward. It is not appropriate at this time to grant this roadway improvement conditioned upon the conservation of all the woodlands of that northern parcel. That issue will come up in the future. When the wetland issue is reviewed, it is somewhat different. Here, the regulated woodlands wetlands are being impacted and there is actual mitigation. There is going to be an MDEQ permit. That is a different regulatory authority. It will be appropriate at that time for the Applicant to talk about finalizing a Conservation Easement in connection with Dr. Tilton’s final review. At this time they can make sure the easement fits with the amount of disturbance that is taking place. Dr. Tilton’s review letter discusses the fact that the Final Site Plan will have to have the Conservation Easement if in fact that is part of the approving motion. It is a question of each Ordinance having a particular authority that goes along with it.

Chair Kocan said that the City’s position is that it is not being said at this time whether the Applicant can or cannot develop that parcel. However, the comments are on the record that the Planning Commission is very sensitive to this particular development site, as are the consultants.

Mr. Schultz said that for the wetlands, it is appropriate for the Planning Commission to require the Conservation Easement based upon Dr. Tilton’s calculations of the appropriate area.

Ms. McBeth reiterated that the City has met several times with the Applicant. They have made modifications to the site plan to preserve the woodlands along the northeast part of the site, some they originally had not intended to preserve. They also have higher quality woodlands near the northwest part of the site, but not on the very northwest parcel. The City has been working with the Applicant, and they have made some concessions for the location of the wetland detention, as far as the storm water area, in terms of preserving woodlands on the site in the area that were deemed to be particularly important. The City hadn’t reviewed in great detail that northwest part of the site because the first plan submitted didn’t provide any detail of any development occurring in that area.

Mr. Schultz said that notwithstanding the authority of the Planning Commission, the City and Applicant have the right to continue to work out the precise Conservation Easement. It is his understanding that this process is heading in the right direction.

The Applicant said that his understanding now is that there is no Conservation Easement relating to the woodlands and coming from this plan’s approval. He said their plan had a demarcation line where the mitigated wetlands and the detention pond are. Everything to the south of that area is being developed. There are trees in that area. Those trees will be removed. They are trying to save the higher quality woodlands – the ones wrapped around the existing wetland along the northern perimeter. With this approval, they have the understanding that when each site plan comes back for approval, there will be some trees removed and mitigated on site. The trees next to the wetlands and around the pond and around the mitigated area are being preserved. Their only question is about the area north of the drain. They understand that the City has not fully reviewed that area. Their intention is to develop that site because it is a very viable site. Their understanding is that the site is not of the same quality of woodland as the areas that are being preserved. The final verdict will have to be determined by the Planning Commission for that site plan.

Moved by Member Sprague, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Chair Kocan called for a ten minute break.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Siegal, Tuomaala & Associates for possible recommendation to City Council for rezoning on property located in Section 26 south of Ten Mile and east of Novi Road. The Applicant is proposing to rezone 8.089 acres from OS-1 (Office Service District) to B-2 (Community Business District) and 17.275 acres from I-1 (Light Industrial District) to B-2 (Community Business District).

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Siegal, Tuomaala & Associates for a Planned Rezoning Overlay, in conjunction with rezoning request 18.641. The subject property is located in Section 26 on the south side of Ten Mile and east of Novi Road and is zoned both OS-1 (Office Service) and I-1 (Light Industrial). The Applicant is proposing 141,384 square feet of commercial space and four out lots. The subject property is approximately 31.449 acres.

Planner Darcy Schmitt located the subject property on an aerial map. In total, the rezoning request is for 25.4 acres. To the west of the property is Walgreens. To the east is the CSX railroad. To the south are Arena Drive and River Oaks Apartments and the Novi Sports Club. Across Ten Mile to the north is a general industrial area. The current zoning on the property is partially light industrial to the east. To the west it is OS-1, office service, and then business to the far west. To the south is OS-1 and also I-1, light industrial. To the north is I-1 and I-2, light and general industrial.

The current Master Plan for Land Use lists the property as a Special Planning Project Area. The property to the south is master planned light industrial. To the west the property is master planned local commercial. To the north the property is master planned light and heavy industrial. The subject property is proposed to be light industrial in the new Master Plan.

The property has a small amount of wetlands in the southeast corner of the property, and in the central south portion of the property. There are medium woodlands on the property.

Planner Tim Schmitt explained the PRO, Planned Rezoning Overlay. There are two steps in this process. There is a land use request covered by the rezoning. This request is for an area measuring slightly less than thirty acres. The PRO covers slightly more land – it also covers two outlots. There is a road proposed to run from Novi Road to the north, eventually connecting to Ten Mile, near Catherine Industrial Drive and further to the east near the railroad tracks.

The land use issue is one request this evening. The second is the PRO request. This is the second PRO to come before the Planning Commission. This subject property has been vacant and not used for several years, since the orchard ceased doing business. The proposal is for a shopping center, anchored by a 60,000 square foot grocery store on the far eastern end of the development. There is a small strip center proposed to the west, totaling approximately 70,000 square feet. There are four proposed outlots. The first is adjacent to the CSX railroad tracks, is the largest of the lots and houses the creek on the south eastern portion of the site. The second lot is adjacent to Walgreens and is slightly less than one acre. The third lot is south of Walgreens. The fourth is just north of the Community Federal Credit Union on Novi Road.

The PRO is a concept plan. Much like the previous process known as the Development Agreement, the City receives a plan and a list of conditions associated with the site that the Applicant is willing to do above and beyond the Ordinance requirements. Mr. Schmitt gave the example of a residential agreement that provided a certain number of homes in exchange for the preservation of high quality woodlands and wetlands. The PRO codifies the Development Agreement process. It is a give and take between the Applicant and the City. The Planning Commission gives their recommendation on the PRO to City Council. The Planning Commission should include any conditions in their motion that they think are important.

The Planning Department reviewed the plan under the Ordinance Section 3402, and does not recommend approval at this time for the reason that the submittal does not go above and beyond the Ordinance. The City’s interpretation is that the PRO was not put into effect merely to approve conceptual plans, but to approve developments above and beyond what can be achieved under the Ordinance. There must be something unique and a substantial public benefit about the plan. There are elements of the PUD and RUD found in the PRO process. There are flexibility and discretion in approving these plans.

Mr. Schmitt said that the Staff isn’t recommending the plan because it is a bad plan; in fact, there are very few issues with the plan as it relates to the B-2 zoning. Their position is something additional must be done in order for the City to consider this PRO. Certainly, if the Planning Commission and ultimately City Council have discussion of a public benefit, they can make that finding if they so choose.

The Birchler Arroyo Traffic Review, prepared by Bill Stimpson, analyzed trip generation. The PRO Traffic Review does not recommend approval due to driveway spacing issues. The Staff and the City Attorney, Tom Schultz, have discussed this and agree that the driveway spacing issues should be reviewed at the time of Preliminary Site Plan submittal. The Planning Commission should not make a finding on the spacing issues at this time.

Mr. Stimpson indicated that he needed information from a traffic study. This is will be done at the time of Preliminary Site Plan submittal, and will come before the Planning Commission. The process is typical for a PRO once the PRO plan and agreement are approved.

The Wetland and Woodland Reviews indicated that more information is needed on the natural features on the site. Since there is a creek that runs through the property, there will be wetland issues associated with that area. The Applicant has already taken that into account somewhat on their conceptual plan. There is not a great deal of regulated woodlands on the site (based on the trees’ size), but this will be reviewed in greater depth at the time of Preliminary Site Plan submittal. Mr. Schmitt noted that the wetland and woodland permits are not being sought this evening.

Mr. Schmitt said that the Conceptual Plan does not "approve" the Preliminary Site Plan. There is flexibility in reviewing the Concept Plan and the Preliminary Site Plan.

The Planning Review suggested that the access management could be discussed. The Staff recommends that the outlots be accessed through this development’s main road. They will still have visibility from the main road, but their curb cuts would not be on the main road.

Mr. Schmitt said there are sidewalk issues on this site. This is an issue that was discussed at length in the recent Master Plan update.

The ownership issue on this site pertains to the fact that the grocery store will want ownership of their own parcel and that creates setback deficiencies. This concept of parcel ownership is standard in the current retail market. The Planning Department does not have a problem with approving this plan with separate ownerships. It is still an integrated shopping center. The separate parcels are a taxation issue.

Mr. Schmitt said that the outlot on the northwest corner, adjacent to Walgreens, will be approximately .97 acres. The B-2 district requires two-acre parcels. Obviously this lot is deficient and there is no real way to increase the size of that lot without making alterations to the overall shopping center. The Planning Department does not have a major problem with waiving that two acre requirement; the Planning Commission and City Council should consider this issue.

Mr. Schmitt said that the Planning Review mentioned several design issues. The Planning Department would like to see this shopping center pushed up toward Ten Mile, to give the property a street-wall feel – something along the lines of Walgreens. There could be a row or two of parking in the front. The majority of the parking should be in the rear. This is something that can be seen in other communities and promotes a different kind of development. It can be done, the request is not impossible. It is just a little different from a retail perspective. Sometimes tenants don’t like that. From the Planning Department’s perspective it is important to discuss this now since the PRO provides for discretionary approval.

The Novi Road Corridor Plan is the genesis of the "Special Planning Project Area" found on the current Master Plan. At the time of that plan, this property was designated for commercial uses. There was no consensus of what to do with this property. At the time, the Planning Commission and the planners (Birchler Arroyo) agreed to deem this area a Special Planning Project Area because it is an important intersection of the City, based on the amount of traffic and the road improvements that are currently underway. At the time, it seemed important to study this corner further before taking action on its master planning. The PRO fits nicely into that idea because it provides everyone with the opportunity to take a closer look at the corner. It seems appropriate to attempt a PRO for this site.

Mr. Schmitt said that the future Master Plan designates this property as office and light industrial.

Mr. Schmitt said that page seven of his review outlines the three items that are the Applicant’s burden under the PRO Ordinance. Although this is not a Special Land Use, City Council will ultimately need to make the finding (as described on page eight) that the plan meets some or all of the criteria of the Special Land Use requirements.

Ms. Schmitt told the Planning Commission that the Planning Department does not recommend approval of the rezoning for some of the reasons mentioned. There are no current plans to upgrade Ten Mile going east. This could be further studied. Prior to 1990, this site was master planned for light industrial. The plan after 1990 changed it to commercial. With the understanding that the roads were not up to standards to accommodate commercial, the property was placed into a Special Study Area until further plans were determined to do upgrades to the roads in that area. Today, the Novi/Ten Mile corner is being improved, but there are no future plans for Ten Mile’s widening or upgrades going east.

The site was reviewed by the Master Plan and Zoning Committee. The Committee looked at the citizen surveys that indicated the residents are adamant about not wanting any more commercial use, other than on Grand River and in the existing commercial areas. The Committee looked at the fact that there is a substantial amount of vacancy in the commercial area. When this plan did come before the Committee, the Committee was interested and thought it was a good idea at first glance. They felt if the Applicant could present a plan in PRO form that would make up for the fact that this is really not where the community wants more commercial, i.e., it provides a community benefit, the Committee would be open to reconsidering the designation of this property on the Master Plan. Their openness to this idea was based on their review of the PRO. Currently the Master Plan draft shows this area as light industrial. Ms. Schmitt said that this was a controversial area in the Master Plan. City Council and the Planning Commission were going both ways in their opinions of this area.

Chair Kocan asked what would be allowed in the OS-1 zoning. She was looking at outlots one and two, which are slated to remain OS-1. Ms. Schmitt replied that general office and medical uses are acceptable. Ms. Schmitt said that no restaurants would be allowed. Restaurants would be allowed in the B-2. No gas stations would be allowed, except for in the B-2 as a Special Land Use.

Chair Kocan asked about the B-1 zoning and whether there was any Staff-related information regarding that option. The B-1 would allow a grocery store but not the other uses that they are interested in providing.

Matt Quinn represented Dan Weiss, the property owners. Mr. Weiss, Lonnie Zimmerman (architect and site designer) and David Paul (traffic consultant) were present.

Mr. Weiss has owned this property for over thirty years. In 1997 he donated 18 acres valued at 3.2 million dollars to the City for the ice arena. He was honored by Mayor Clark with the proclamation of being a Novi good citizen. That donation was limited to recreational and children’s uses, and that was part of Mr. Weiss’s stipulation on the donation. Later the City came forward and asked Mr. Weiss about adding a cell tower to that property to raise money to keep the ice arena operational. Mr. Weiss complied with the request. Mr. Weiss is currently working with the City’s Parks and Recreations Department to develop a park around the ice arena.

Mr. Quinn said that Mr. Weiss has been working with the City on this property since 1990. This is part of the old Erwin Orchard which has been defunct for years. He owned the land even when it was used as an orchard. In 1993 the land was master planned for commercial purposes. That Master Plan was quite significant. At that time there were outside planning consultants and an in-house planning staff. There was a nine-member Planning Commission. It was unanimous at that time to master plan that property for community commercial purposes. It has really been that same designation since 1993.

Mr. Quinn said that in 1997 the Master Plan went back under review and in 1999 the Novi 2020 plan was approved. This area was again kept as community commercial on the Master Plan. Mr. Quinn displayed the Master Plan at that time. The Novi Road was community commercial, and so was the Ten Mile frontage, all the way to the railroad track. The rest of the area was light industrial. In the text of the Master Plan it stated that the Master Plan for Land Use includes new local retail sites for a possible grocery store and similar related development at the southeast corner of Novi and Ten Mile, the northwest corner of Beck Road and Grand River (Westmarket Square shopping center with Kroger) and the southwest corner of Wixom and Grand River (Novi Promenade – which was master planned for community commercial and the rezoning was denied. There was a lawsuit and now the land is developed community commercial under a consent judgment).

Mr. Quinn said the subject property is the only location of the three that has not been developed for the purposes it was intended for in 1993. If the 1999 Master Plan was left alone, this Applicant would be rezoning the entire Novi Road frontage for community commercial as well as the Ten Mile frontage. However, the Novi Road Corridor Plan came out in July of 2001. Mr. Quinn questions whether this plan is a true amendment to the Master Plan, because the Master Plan has never been changed to his knowledge. There is text in the Plan that suggests it is a Master Plan amendment. Under that assumption, Mr. Quinn said that the plan somehow marks the subject area as a Special Project Area. He said there is no definition in the text that explains what a Special Project Area is.

Mr. Quinn said that both he and Mr. Weiss were present at the time of these discussions. Leonard Siegal from the architectural firm was also there. They met with subcommittees of the Planning Commission and with the Planning Commission as a whole when this was adopted. The idea at the time was since all of this property was under single ownership, it was a unique opportunity to consider how its development could be coordinated together – both the commercial aspects of it and the office aspects of it. This Special Project Area talks about a mixed use development. As the Planning Commission will find, the proposed PRO is just that – office and commercial.

Mr. Quinn said that it was interesting to note that the Novi Plan cites the subject property under its architectural recommendations as a location suitable for a brick shopping center with EIFS fascia and tile accents. He said the City’s design is more of a strip center and less attractive than what the Applicant has proposed. He reiterated that this was the City’s recommended plan and Master Plan for the subject property, which is in fact, a community shopping center.

In April 2004 this Applicant went before the Master Plan and Zoning Committee with their proposal. There was a 4-0 unanimous vote in support of recommending this plan to be rezoned as requested by the Applicant. So from 1993 to 2004, Mr. Quinn said that there has not been a change in the City’s position on this piece of property. It is to be commercial use.

Mr. Quinn posed the question of why hasn’t the Applicant come in and requested this rezoning earlier. His answer was that the City told him not to do so. In 1999 and in 2001 (when the Novi Corridor referenced the property as commercial) the Applicant was told not to build it yet because the road infrastructure was not available yet. Mr. Weiss said okay, he would wait.

Now, the roads are being upgraded in that area, and Mr. Weiss is coming forward with his request. At the end of 2003, beginning of 2004, Mr. Weiss noted the City Manager’s quarterly report listed the subject intersection as being scheduled for expansion. It described a 1,000-foot widening in different directions and five lanes being provided. Mr. Weiss said that now is the time to come forward, as the City asked.

Mr. Quinn said that the traffic is going to be further alleviated. One of the things mentioned, and as a contractual part of the PRO, this Applicant will add a third lane the entire frontage of his property along Ten Mile, from where the County is stopping, east to the railroad tracks. Mr. Quinn felt that concession alleviated any traffic concerns. It is a huge expense. That is not a requirement from Oakland County. They reviewed a preliminary plan and what they would require from this development is a partial center turn lane for a small distance, and excel and decel lanes. It was this Applicant’s idea to remove that hodge podge and build one new strip all the way across the property line.

Mr. Quinn said that currently in Novi there are two grocery stores serving this community of 50,000+ residents. There is a 1970 vintage Farmer Jack store that is less than 30,000 square feet. The first modern store is the Kroger Store across from Providence. Its footprint is smaller than the Kroger store proposed for this site. Mr. Quinn said that people want to grocery shop in their own community rather than battle the traffic of a regionally located Meijers. Mr. Quinn said his own wife was overjoyed at the prospect of a grocery store that wasn’t the Farmer Jack or Meijers.

Mr. Quinn noted the demarcation line that separated the B-2 from the OS-1 on an aerial map. The Applicant is proposing to rezone a portion of the OS-1 to B-2, and Mr. Quinn pointed out that portion, which is along Novi Road. It is about eight acres. On the side closer to the railroad track, the I-1 to B-2 is approximately 17 acres.

Mr. Quinn showed a map of the current zoning of the property. The west side is OS-1. Without anything, this property could be developed as an 85,000 square foot office building fronting Ten Mile, and a 40,000 square foot office building on Novi Road, and up to 281,000 square foot light industrial warehouse which would generate truck traffic. The total development that could be proposed by this Applicant is 407,000 square feet, but this PRO is proposing 179,000 square feet, which includes the outlots. This is 228,000 less square feet. It represents less than half of what could be developed.

Mr. Quinn said that the Applicant has proposed that 25% of their traffic in a.m. and afternoon peak traffic times will be pass-by traffic. In the morning the peak hours will yield 166 traffic trips. With I-1, it would generate 409 morning traffic trips. In the afternoon, the Applicant suggests 685 trips will be generated by their proposal; I-1 would generate 414 trips. In the morning, the difference of 243 is in favor of the shopping center. In the afternoon the difference is 271 in detriment to the shopping center. This is a difference of 18 trips when the two peak traffic times are combined.

Member Lipski asked Mr. Quinn for clarification. He asked whether Mr. Quinn was suggesting that with the traffic relating to retail as compared to the other uses that could go on this property, there would be less impact during peak drive times with the retail use. Mr. Quinn responded that was true for the morning peak hours, and in the evening the retail would generate somewhat more, but the combination of the two numbers, the difference is roughly 18 trips. Therefore, the difference is almost nil. The difference is the 25% pass-by calculation. Even if the 25% was removed from the calculation in the morning, the shopping center is still significantly less than the I-1 and office uses.

Mr. Quinn said that the Weiss family is asking the City to implement the completion of its own eleven years’ worth of Master Plan study. The City has performed a sound study with good analyses. The Applicant wants the City to carry their plan through. The City has looked at traditional, well-developed principles of urban planning over these eleven years. The Applicant is asking the City to implement those years of planning.

Lonnie Zimmerman summarized the plan. He said that the plan was designed in four phases. The first phase is the supermarket site, and represents a little over 6.5 acres and is about 63,000 square feet. Landscaping proposed on that site is for the front and sides, and is over 15,000 square feet – the Ordinance requires 8,300 square feet.

Mr. Zimmerman said that the second phase is the adjacent two retail buildings. They are housed on 7.2 acres and represent about 53,000 square feet. Over 15,000 square feet of front landscaping is proposed versus the Ordinance requirement of just under 8,000 square feet.

Mr. Zimmerman said that the third phase would also be neighborhood retail located on 4.3 acres and is proposed to be 25,200 square feet. The landscape would be about 4,800 square feet, which is very close to the Ordinance requirement.

The four outlots are located in the OS-1 (two lots) and B-2 (two lots).

The Applicant hired Strategic Edge to perform market studies on this site. Two of the studies were forwarded to the Planning Commission. The first study was performed in January 2004 and was a commercial opportunity study. The bottom line of that report determined that a shopping center of this size and nature is supportable at this location, based on the economic and demographic data they collected.

In September 2004 another study was performed and it has some interesting results. First, convenience was listed as the primary factor in consumer choice for a grocery and neighborhood shopping center. Mr. Zimmerman reiterated the term "neighborhood" and said that they were not proposing big box users. Second, the study provided a definitive "yes" to the question of whether the Novi community would patronize this shopping center. The study sums up that this would be an economically viable center.

Mr. Zimmerman said that the building location is an important issue. This is a hot-button issue all over the country, and certainly in this area. The concern is how to improve the streetscape. Mr. Zimmerman said that this site must be looked at in context with its location and the nature of its use. When streetscapes are discussed in planning, issues other than the development itself are considered. Street parking is an example, as is public transit and access to the site. These are integral components that favor the building being moved closer to the front of a site.

Mr. Zimmerman said that moving this building forward causes significant problems. First, this is a serious supermarket problem – they do not like parking behind their store. It is a safety issue because the loading is performed behind the building. Shoppers then have to come into a back door. There is a convenience to the shopper when the door is located in the front. This allows the shoppers to park and orient themselves easily, as they can see the entrance from the main road rather than having to go behind the store to park and enter. This opinion is also held by supermarkets other than Kroger.

Mr. Zimmerman said that there is also a problem with bringing the neighborhood retail forward on the site. This creates access issues for the stores. Again, the convenience factor is paramount and when there is no access via street parking or public transit, the shoppers must enter through the rear of the store if that is where the parking is located. This means that doors must be in the rear, or people will have to walk around a whole group of buildings to gain entry. For some uses this may be okay – in nice weather. This is Michigan. Some stores would not be able to accommodate a rear entrance easily. If rear entry is provided, then store layout becomes a major problem. Where is the storage area located? Typically, stores with rear entries have difficulty with this design. Usually, rear entry stores are designed as such by necessity in the sense that there is already an existing development and the store must be placed with the parking in the rear. It is not a customer-friendly design. It is not preferred by retailers. It becomes a significant problem. In spite of all the good planning principles, Mr. Zimmerman said that there are too many missing pieces to make this concept work on many suburban sites. This is one site that it isn’t going to work on. The Applicant would prefer to focus their efforts on providing additional landscaping, wide sidewalks, an acceptable streetscape, small store design, small store frontage, extra perimeter landscaping, etc. He said that it did not make sense to provide the alternative streetscape design against a road (Ten Mile) where the speed limit is 45+ mph. He recommended providing the streetscape in an area where benches can be placed where the traffic is not so fast and loud and confusing.

Member Lipski asked whether the setback was an issue for this meeting. Mr. Schmitt responded that it is an issue in the context that it was in the Planning Review. Member Lipski wanted to confirm that for the purpose of this meeting, the rezoning and overlay were the issues at hand. Mr. Schmitt replied that it could be an issue relating to the overlay question, if the Planning Commission so chooses.

Member Lipski asked whether there were safety issues (fire, EMS, etc.) that should be addressed at this time. Mr. Zimmerman responded that he would need to give the subject some thought before answering. He thought that there must not be any fire or EMS issues because the Fire Department did not comment as much. He said that they have not spoken with public safety regarding any police issues.

Member Lipski said he made the point because if the buildings are placed closer to the road, this type of design would require the emergency vehicles to scoot back around the building. He thought that the entrances would also be located in the rear of the building. He did not think that moving the building closer to the road is helpful from a public safety point of view. Mr. Zimmerman said that to his knowledge they have never had a safety issue relating to having the buildings sit back from the road. This alternative design is something that would have to be given consideration.

Mr. Lipski was reminded of a development at the northwest corner of Orchard Lake and Fourteen Mile. He was not familiar with a lot of retail that is being developed close to the front of their parcel and wrapping around back. He noted that Fountain Walk is in Chapter Eleven and their parking arrangement is unique in terms of accessing the mall. He did not know whether there was another value to moving the design forward other than cosmetic.

Mr. Zimmerman said that he has just received the new elevation prototype for Kroger. He said that the design does not look like a big box and has nice architectural elements. The subsequent submittals to the City will have the elevations. He said the look provides a true neighborhood feeling.

Mr. Quinn said that the Applicant submitted the plan under the PRO because it coordinates the existing OS-1 uses with this plan. They also thought that the contractual agreement on installing the third lane on Ten Mile was a beneficial stipulation. This could not be a City requirement, but the Applicant can voluntarily offer this as a term of their agreement. The Applicant would also agree to limit uses – no gas stations or automobile uses. They would provide fewer curb cuts. He noted that the shopping Center at Grand River and Beck Road has four curb cuts along Grand River. This development proposes the same number, when the two outlots are considered. He said the Applicant is still willing to consider design alternatives.

Mr. Quinn said that this design provides the coordination of the Novi Road’s entrance as a method to remove customer traffic from the Novi Road/Ten Mile intersection. The trucks that travel north on Novi Road could also use this entrance to proceed directly to the loading area. The Applicant will also agree to include greater landscaping provisions in their PRO Agreement. The sidewalks will be provided throughout the process and will be agreed to in writing.

Mr. Quinn said that the coordination of the site drainage will help save the wetlands and will pretreat the run-off before it reaches the wetlands. He said that Chattman Creek is very sensitive and the Applicant is sensitive to that statement. They want ensure that the natural features are preserved as much as possible.

Mr. Quinn said that the Applicant could just go forward with the rezoning. They felt that the PRO provided a safety net for the City so they would know what they would be getting with the rezoning.

Member Sprague read the correspondence into the record:

Sharon Schwarz, 42700 W. Ten Mile: Objected to the rezoning and PRO because Novi does not need more commercial areas. There are already too many vacant stores and restaurants within a mile of this site. She said there was already too much traffic.

Glen Lowery, 43455 W. Ten Mile: Approved of both the rezoning and PRO.

Chair Kocan closed the Public Hearings after determining no one from the audience wished to speak.

Chair Kocan said that she was on the Planning Commission in 2001 when the Novi Road Corridor Plan came forward. She read and excerpt from the Novi Road Corridor Plan that states that this area was deemed a Special Planning Area because the City wanted to determine whether there is a need for commercial on this property, in light of what has happened elsewhere in the City. The sitting Planning Commission was told that this area was deemed a Special Planning Area because the City wanted to determine whether there was a need for commercial on this property, in light of what has happened elsewhere in the City. It was her understanding that the Corridor Plan was approved as an amendment to the Master Plan.

Member Wrobel said that he would like to see another supermarket in Novi but not another strip mall. He said there were a lot of homes in that area and this would provide those residents with a choice.

Member Wrobel said that he would prefer to see what happens at the Novi Road/Ten Mile intersection after the construction is complete. He is tired of being stuck in traffic between Meadowbrook and Novi Road heading west. He thought that the supermarket might draw more traffic from the east to the west.

Member Wrobel understood Mr. Schmitt’s concern regarding streetscapes. He said the concept intrigued him. He said that he grew up in Detroit where the parking was located in the back of stores. He also understood the practicality of situation. He said that the traffic lane just five feet from the entrance is dangerous. Member Wrobel also said he does not like big box stores.

Member Wrobel did not think that Novi needed any more vacant storefronts. He said that he often hears complaints that half of Novi’s stores are empty and people wonder why more stores are being built. On the other hand he also hears people say that want closer supermarket options.

Member Cassis has thought a great deal about this project. He said the crucial question is whether the area is ready and capable of handling this huge project. The one factor that weighs against approval of this plan is adequacy of the infrastructure. He said that several crucial decisions have been made in this community. The first is the decision to make Ten Mile a three-lane road. He remembered when the County and State had a cashier’s check for Novi for the widening of Ten Mile to four lanes. The City said no, thanks. The intersection has been widened, but the full widening of Ten Mile is just an "if". Novi Road is still a two-lane road south of Ten Mile, where many of the customers for this project would come from. Member Cassis is already concerned about the traffic issues relating to parents lining up along Novi Road near the Montessori school across from the subject property.

Member Cassis said that several years ago this community concluded that commercial should be contained in the Twelve Oaks and Grand River area. He recalled that the last Kroger store wanted to be on Ten Mile and Beck Road but ended up on Grand River. A long debate accompanied that decision.

Member Cassis said that this community has also spoken that our current level of commercial services is adequate. The people have said that no more commercial is necessary. Member Cassis does acknowledge the need for a Novi grocery store. He said that he could be supportive of this plan if it didn’t include thousands more square feet of commercial, mainly because of the infrastructure inadequacy and the health and safety concerns that accompany that.

Member Cassis said that the City has seen an oversaturation of commercial services and commercial service districts over the last couple of years. He said there are thousands of vacant square feet at the Novi Town Center, a bankruptcy at Fountain Walk, the sad story of Main Street, and rumors of more empty buildings in Main Street.

Member Cassis asked whether this City is rushing into new development, thus cannibalizing existing development. He has heard from businessmen who are teetering in their business health and worrying about more competition across the street. A recent Detroit New article chronicled how some suburban areas are struggling with retail vacancies. He wished to ask the Applicant if he is sure this project is economically viable.

Member Cassis said that it was his understanding that this plan will someday include a multiple-family element. It includes seven curb cuts on two sides of the development. He questioned whether the traffic generated might be overwhelming to the infrastructure.

Member Cassis said that on the other hand, the generosity of and the contributions made by Mr. Weiss to this community should be given consideration. He said that this community is indebted to Mr. Weiss.

However, Member Cassis said that he still questions whether this much development should be built on a two-lane Novi Road and a two-lane Ten Mile. He concluded that he would be more supportive of this request if the design was scaled down in size. He did not think that this was the right time to develop such a large development.

Member Pehrson said that the Planning Commission is not just a group of approvers, but a group of planners looking to plan the City’s growth in the best manner. He said that there are arguments both for and against this project.

Member Pehrson said there is nothing aesthetically pleasing about the design; it is a sea of parking lots. He appreciated that the Applicant has offered additional landscaping, but he did not see where this plan meets with the intent of what the City wants.

Member Pehrson said he would rather see a scaled down version of this plan. There are too many other strip malls in the City that remain unoccupied. He said that good economic times are going to justify the occupancy of this center, but now it will be faced with the same occupancy levels as the other strip malls in the City.

Member Pehrson said that he even questioned whether the grocery store is really required. He said that buying habits have changed. He said that it can’t be discounted that there are big box stores in and around the City. Local convenience stores now carry the necessity items – milk, diapers, etc. There will be a Sam’s Club in the City not too far in the future.

Member Pehrson said that if a PRO Agreement were to be entered into, he would like to see something offered that is more aesthetically pleasing with less asphalt. He was also concerned about the traffic flow. He said he was concerned about the infrastructure, and he agreed that the third lane would certainly help. He was still concerned about Novi Road, because this center could draw more people from the south. More people will also be drawn from the west. He did not think the infrastructure was in place to accommodate this plan. He thinks that a better plan could be offered.

Member Lipski thought the comments presented were valid. He said that he was tired of hearing about this City’s reputation in the real estate community and its being sued for millions of dollars. He felt his role on the Planning Commission was to act reasonably. He felt that the Novi Staff does an exceptional job compared with other communities.

Member Lipski did not think there was enough of a reason not to approve this plan. He said he keeps hearing comments about the increase in traffic and the vacant store fronts, and asked which of the two scenarios was accurate. He concluded that no one know exactly what it’s going to be.

Member Lipski thought that widening Ten Mile was a big offer. He thought that excluding gas stations from the site was also a big offer. He did not think that a citizens’ survey suggesting that there was too much shopping in Novi was a specific enough analysis. He understood that this City has many regional centers in the I-96/Novi Road corridor. He did not think that the current levels of shopping in Novi addressed grocery stores.

Member Lipski did not necessarily disagree with the comments made about strip malls housing mom and pop stores. He thought that a lot of the apprehension comes from the fact another mall with little aesthetic value can have a high rate of turnover.

Member Lipski asked about the strip portion of the proposal. Mr. Quinn responded that they would not be big box users. The store fronts will be offset and each will have a different texture. One could be brick, the next one stone, etc. The PRO will propose a pallet of façades. He apologized that the Kroger façade was received too late to include in the Planning Commission packet. Mr. Quinn said that the outlots are intended to be moved forward as some previous comments have suggested. These buildings are proposed to be built in line with Walgreens. They will also have secondary access from the internal roads. Those customers can park on the side or in the back.

Mr. Quinn addressed the vacancy issue. He said the Applicant purchased a very expensive market study to determine what his risks are in spending the millions of dollars necessary to build this development. Mr. Weiss is comfortable with the fact that the market study is convincing enough that there is a need for various types of stores in the Novi market.

Mr. Quinn said that when a new center comes forward, it forces older centers to upgrade. He said that the citizens of Novi would like nothing more than the centers along Novi Road and Meadowbrook Road to upgrade their appearances. Those landowners have not put any money into those stores, which may explain why there are vacancies. New centers bring a vivacious attitude toward the community, and it makes people rethink their own marketing plans, and consider what they might be doing wrong.

Mr. Quinn said that a Kroger in this location would be a draw from all four directions. He thought that the traffic would not be that much of a concern based on the traffic study. He expected that this corner would do well, and it would improve traffic flow for the center on the northwest corner as well.

Member Lipski asked whether Mr. Weiss would retain any ownership in the center. How would the center be marketed to solvent tenants? Mr. Quinn said that Kroger would purchase their own land, but that Mr. Weiss would retain ownership of the center. The outlots would likely be sold. Member Lipski said that a man who invests this kind of money again into this City is going to feel a certain accountability. He also conceded that there is a risk with retail.

Member Lipski felt the location was ideal for an upscale grocery store. He did not think that traffic was a problem. He thought the extra lane would be useful, though some may think that preserving the natural features is more important. He thought the development of this corner is inevitable. He felt the crisis of Main Street was caused by Vic’s using the wrong model for the area. He created something for which there was no demand. He noted that the Main Street area is filling up, slowly but surely.

Mr. Lipski said that Mr. Weiss has a right to develop the property consistent with its zoning. He said the alternative to Mr. Weiss’ plan is industrial and office, and he did not understand why a more aggressive use is more attractive than this commercial use, which Member Lipski considers a less offensive use, with regard to both the environment and cosmetics. He also thought that light industrial would flood the morning and evening traffic. Retail would provide a full-day traffic, not as likely during the peak a.m. and p.m. times, and it would also spread to the weekends. His opinion on what he has heard about the traffic is that it may be a concern, and he did not think that was a strong enough position to deny this Applicant’s attempt to develop. He supported the rezoning, and with clarification, he would support the PRO.

Member Sprague said there are few developments that illicit such a passionate response from both sides. Member Sprague considers this intersection to be the center point of Novi. He always passes through this intersection.

Member Sprague said that the rezoning is not a question of saying no, but a question of determining why the City should say yes. A rezoning request is more discretionary. Overall, Member Sprague thought this City needs a new grocery store. He did not know what the economic impact was relating to this City’s residents going to other cities to do their grocery shopping. He did have concern about the other "strip" retail.

Member Sprague said that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee also discussed the property south of this land being rezoned for multiple family (the original discussions on this property included both commercial and residential elements). Ms. Schmitt responded the multiple family element would be an issue presented at a later time. Member Sprague said that at the Committee level, the multiple family issue was an integral part of the discussion. From his recollection, the multiple family was the controversial element of the plan.

Member Sprague said that the additional lane was a good thing. Member Sprague said that the question cannot be answered with saying the City likes the property undeveloped and it should stay that way. The question is what can be built now, and how do the choices compare. Member Sprague thought that B-1 might be a better alternative, because of its restriction of restaurants. He thought the City had enough restaurants.

Member Sprague asked what the natural feature impacts were. Is there more exposure to risk associated with one particular zoning? Ms. Schmitt said that with either zoning, a developer would have to adhere to the terms of the Ordinance.

Member Sprague asked why it is being said that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee is recommending office and light industrial use. His recollection of the Committee discussions was that they recommended this type of use but wanted to consider it a Special Land Use, especially with the housing element. Ms. Schmitt said that when it was discussed in the Committee, the vote was if the Planning Commission and City Council determined that the change in use would be more appropriate than light industrial, then they would be in favor of changing the Master Plan if the plan came with a PRO and warranted that the change would work on this corner. The Special Planning Area was designated as such because there was concern at the time of the Novi Road Corridor Plan, that this corner as commercial in the Master Plan may or may not be the best use. It was already master planned for commercial at the time. There was a reason for changing that. Ms. Schmitt said the Planning Commission should be aware of that when looking at this plan today, because it is a difficult piece of property.

Member Sprague asked whether this was a timing issue of keeping the zoning map in sync with the Master Plan. Ms. Schmitt said that what was determined at the time of Master Plan and Zoning Committee review, there was concern that the area wasn’t ready for commercial. Because the property across the street is light and heavy industrial, and because the property is adjacent to the railroad track, because of the topography change, the Committee decided that it (industrial) would be an adequate use at the time.

Member Sprague said that, in general, he supports the rezoning. He would prefer B-1 over B-2.

Member Sprague asked what the Applicant is getting from the PRO. Mr. Quinn responded that the Applicant receives a "definiteness" of a maximum square footage number for the site. They also get an overall site coordination between the Novi Road frontage and the Ten Mile frontage. He said that Kroger is demanding the Novi Road access point. The PRO coordinates the OS-1 and the commercial site. The rest of the benefits are to the City.

Member Sprague asked whether the PRO is necessary to get the road. Mr. Schmitt replied that the road is not something the City could require outside of a PRO. Member Sprague clarified that he meant the Novi Road access point. Mr. Schmitt said that offering that access point is just good site planning practice. They would be able to provide that Novi Road access even without the PRO, as long as they owned the land.

Member Sprague had a concern relating to the other developments. He said that the City invested a lot into Main Street and that area has not done as well as anyone had hoped. Fountain Walk has come in, competed with Main Street, and has not really done that well. Now the Gateway East Ordinance will also compete with Main Street. The Novi Town Center has a lot of vacancies. There is a reluctance on Member Sprague’s part to encourage something else that competes with Main Street and Novi Town Center. On the other hand, he wondered whether that onus should be placed on this Applicant.

Member Sprague said that the uses have to be considered. A smaller grocery store could go into Main Street. A grocery store is not appropriate for the Novi Town Center – it doesn’t fit in a center like that. The grocery store in this proposed location makes sense because it doesn’t compete with the other projects.

Member Sprague said that infrastructure and "Grand River as the commercial corridor" are significant concerns for the City. However, if this property were developed as it is zoned, it will provide all the same impacts. The concern for vacant store fronts just becomes a concern for vacant office space. Short of telling the property owner not to build anything, what can the Planning Commission tell him? The Planning Commission does not have the right to tell a property owner not to build anything on his property.

Member Sprague said that the level of commercial services is probably adequate for the City, but if someone wants to build something and compete in the marketplace, that is the way this country runs. Overall, Member Sprague supports the rezoning, and he likes the conditions listed in the PRO. He prefers a B-1 zoning. He would prefer less square footage, and he said that the PRO Agreement should include any other stipulations that would also be to the City’s advantage. This is an important corner of the City. He doesn’t want another strip mall on the corner and then ten years from now the Novi residents will comment that it is a great corner, bad strip mall.

Member Sprague thought the sidewalks should be done right off the bat. Member Sprague would prefer a streetscape over a street wall. He said that back is going to be better. He can appreciate the street wall look, but it would be out of character there. If commercial is across the street that is set back a little, and the Walgreens that sits there, if this plan starts there and moves back that is going to be a much better look than having some buildings pushed up on Ten Mile when nothing else is pushed up on Ten Mile.

Member Gutman agreed with much of Member Sprague’s comments. He appreciated the impassioned beliefs held by the other Planning Commission members on how certain things should be. He weighs his own family’s needs in his review of this development. He does not look forward to another industrial center on this site. He thought that would bring the same challenges a retail use would bring.

Member Gutman thought that historically, the City has looked at this parcel to become the zoning that is being requested by this Applicant. To some extent the Planning Commission is still uncertain as to what that use is. He said it would behoove the City to rezone this property to B-2.

Chair Kocan said the first things she reviewed were the density issue and the traffic impacts. She was a firm supporter of this Ten Mile corridor being considered residential from Haggerty to Meadowbrook and to the railroad track, and from Novi Road all the way to Napier Road. She expects to slow down in a residential area, no differently than she slows down to travel through downtown Plymouth. When she sees this size of development come forward, she considers the traffic. She has a great concern about this size development; she does not believe it belongs in the middle of a residential neighborhood, being fed by more residential roads.

Chair Kocan said that it has been policy that Ten Mile should be, at most, three lanes, to allow traffic to get in and out of the residential area. Chair Kocan asked Mr. Stimpson to comment on the chart from page two of his review. She cited the proposed B-2 shopping center new trips of 7,396, assuming a statistically unsupported percentage of 25% pass-by p.m. peak hour traffic and recommended for use by professionals in review of a shopping center of this size. Mr. Stimpson said that it is an assumption used on the part of traffic consultants. In this case there are actually the questions of both pass-by and diverted traffic. Some people are currently traveling these two lane sections away from this area going to supermarkets and other related stores, and might result in an actual pass-by percentage of this site greater than 25%. There is no way of really knowing this number.

Chair Kocan said that with the existing zoning of OS-1 and I-1, the total number of 24-hour trips is 3,184. She said the commercial use causes 2.33 times more traffic on a daily basis. She questioned the ability of a road that is already bogged down with 20,000-21,000 cars in each direction to handle more traffic - an additional 3,000 would be added by industrial, and another 3,000 would be added by commercial. Mr. Stimpson said it is really only a peak hour phenomenon. The daily number means nothing in terms of congestion. It is the p.m. peak hour that is important. He also said that traffic numbers can’t be reviewed by adding the peak hours together. He said that the shopping center would generate 65% more traffic in the p.m. peak hour, or 271 new trips in all four directions.

Mr. Stimpson said that there is an issue of the intersection itself, and the immediate site frontage along the Ten Mile and Novi Roads. Even with the site traffic added, operations in the immediate area will actually be better than they are prior to the construction to start, with enough additional road capacity being added. Things will be better in that immediate area. The other issue that hasn’t been addressed is what happens at points further away on the two-lane roads to the west, south and east. To the north, Novi Road will be widened to five lanes before too many years pass. No one knows what the traffic impacts to the west, south and east will be. No one has tried to estimate that. The question is how much traffic is already using those sections of the roads to go to other stores, that will now not have to go that far. They will stop in this area where the road improvements have been made. It is a complicated issue.

Mr. Stimpson explained the area’s road improvements. He said this information should be shown on the next plan submittal. The Ten Mile and Novi Road intersection will be five lanes from Arena Drive to some distance north of Ten Mile, and ultimately to Grand River Avenue. On Ten Mile, there will be a two-way left turn lane with a dedicated left turn lane west bound and a two way left turn lane will be constructed east to just east of Catherine Industrial Drive. The Oakland County Road Commission has asked for some extension of that. Mr. Stimpson said that in his review they had asked for this width be extended all the down to the edge of this property’s frontage. They have agreed to that. Westbound, in front of this site, there will be two travel lanes from just east of Catherine Drive. That will sort out as two lanes to proceed through the intersection. The intersection will function better in this manner.

Chair Kocan maintained the size of this development is too big and there are too many curb cuts. They are not conducive to the area. Although the intersection is being upgraded, the residents know that there are grocery stores on the fringes of the city (Haggerty at Eight Mile, Wixom and Grand River, etc.). The people of Novi have stated that they want their commercial shopping on a commercial road like Grand River. That is what Chair Kocan is basing her position on. Town Center is an excellent location to have traffic. The roads are being widened there, and it gets the destination traffic.

Chair Kocan did not like this location. When the Master Plan was approved in either 1993 or 1998, she was concerned about this corner. Therefore, she agreed with the corner being tagged as a Special Planning Area during the Novi Road Corridor Study discussion. She did not feel this corner was appropriate for a grocery store.

Chair Kocan said that Vic’s Market would have fared better had it been moved closer to the road. The parking should have been behind. She understood the Applicant’s comments about not wanting the pedestrian traffic alongside the truck traffic behind the store. She understands Staff’s recommendation to bring it forward. Realistically, she was not sure that was the best thing to do.

Chair Kocan said that the fringe shopping centers must be considered. Although they are not within the City’s limits, they are used by Novi residents. This City has an overabundance of other retail. This is a give-and-take situation; a City can’t have an overabundance of retail and then try to meet all of the needs of its residents, because this maxes out the roads, services and utilities. She is not as concerned with having the "right amount" of grocery stores within the City. She knows the regional aspect of Novi’s shopping draws traffic from all other areas.

Chair Kocan did not understand why this request wasn’t for B-1 instead of B-2. Chair Kocan noted that this plan calls for a grocery store and 179,000 square feet of other retail area, including some space designated for restaurants. Again, restaurants will multiply the traffic in this area. The restaurants in the Town Center are in a perfect location. It’s a destination location. It’s a regional type of need.

Chair Kocan said the Planning Commission’s efforts at this meeting is to determine their recommendation to send to City Council on the rezoning of this property. Chair Kocan said she was aware that in April the Master Plan and Zoning Committee voted 4-0 in favor of a development like this. She also said that this item was again reviewed at a more recent Committee meeting, and concern was expressed for the size of this development.

Ms. Schmitt said that the Master Plan was shown to City Council, and there was a split opinion on the site. When the Master Plan and Zoning Committee voted 4-0 to approve this concept for the site, they requested more detail and suggested a PRO to limit the intensity of the site. They were not looking at the request as though commercial belonged on this corner, rather, if commercial is allowed on this site it should be restricted.

Chair Kocan asked about the upcoming Master Plan. Ms. Schmitt said that the land is master planned for light industrial and office. There will no longer be a Special Planning Area for this property. Ms. Schmitt said that only the Public Hearing will be on October 27, 2004. The Planning Commission will have to determine what they want this property master planned.

Chair Kocan understood that some benefits are the result of this site coming forward as a PRO. This also provides the City with insight into how the property will be developed. The developer has a feel for what has conceptually been approved. The PRO process and the RUD process both require a detailed review. Suggestions have been made. There has been controversy between the Planning, Engineering and Traffic recommendations with regard to the curb cuts. Planning states that all the curb cuts should be removed from the outlots. Engineering agreed, but Traffic suggested keeping three curb cuts on Ten Mile. Chair Kocan did not support additional Ten Mile curb cuts for the outlots.

Chair Kocan said that the design must be sensitive to the pedestrian walkways in front of the grocery store. She was not sure that this plan accommodates that idea. She said this was a dangerous situation. There were recommendations regarding widening the entrances to forty feet from the Planning Department. These access management issues should be specifically listed in any motion made.

Chair Kocan noted the suggestion that the sidewalk plan be installed with the first phase. She would recommend the Applicant consider a crossing over the railroad track. The sidewalks should be eight-foot wide bike paths. She noted that the property ownership issues should be handled prior to site plan submittal.

Chair Kocan was concerned that approving this PRO approves of the wetland and woodland impacts. The Consultants want more information and better preservation. If this concept plan is approved, is the layout cast in stone? Now, nothing additional will be preserved because the Applicant will say that the plan was already approved. This plan has not been reviewed with a magnifying glass; she does not want to be caught again by this double-edged sword.

Chair Kocan did not support this proposal or the rezoning. The PRO, while there are enhancements, she can’t support because of the size of the development. She would consider a B-1 zoning. She still has traffic concerns. She said that the Traffic Review has requested a revised Traffic Study. This is critical information to Chair Kocan. To say that everything is on the up and up, approving this concept for this intersection is not in its best interest.

Ms. McBeth commended everyone for their open dialogue. She thought the Planning Commission as a whole has offered suggestions on what they envision for a possible PRO for this property. These items – road improvements, the center turn lane, building façades, landscaping improvements, use restrictions, traffic considerations, access points, internal traffic circulation, first phase sidewalks – are currently not listed on the plan. Ms. McBeth suggested that the Planning Commission make the recommendation on the rezoning and hold off on the PRO question until these issues have been clarified, or hold off on both recommendations.

Mr. Schultz added that the PRO is split from the rezoning, because it allows a way for the City to consider (in this instance) what elements of a commercial use would be acceptable on a specific property. This method can prohibit certain possibilities that the City might want to preclude from a property. Mr. Schultz said that these items should be listed on the PRO because what has been submitted is not a PRO in the true sense. They have made indications of what they want to do, but it needs to be incorporated into a plan showing all the concessions, with notes about what is going to happen. Mr. Schultz said it makes no sense to forward a recommendation of any kind on to City Council at this time. The Applicant should have the opportunity to return with a plan that shows all of these things so the Planning Commission can move forward at that time. The Planning Commission should indicate in their motion whether they are or are not interested in seeing another plan. Even though City Council is the ultimate decision maker, this Commission should want to be on the record with what they think a PRO for this site should look like.

Member Sprague said that the Planning Commission members range from enthusiastic to possibly having luke warm support for this type of development on this property. What ultimately gets approved must be more specific than what has been presented. Member Sprague asked what direction everyone should take. Should the Applicant continue to work with Staff? Should Staff and the Master Plan and Zoning Committee meet? Which parties are involved in a postponement of the matter, such that when the plan is resubmitted, it returns and the City has a comfort level. This is complex issue and it is important that the concept be thoroughly reviewed prior to its going before City Council.

Ms. McBeth suggested that the Applicant continue to work with the Staff. The minutes of this meeting would be sent to the Applicant along with the Staff notes, and then the Applicant can resubmit for the Planning Commission’s review. Ms. McBeth said that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee can call for the return of this plan to their Committee, but she felt that Staff was comfortable in working on these issues.

Member Sprague suggested that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee look at the resubmittal after Staff and the Applicant have worked out the plan and prior to its return to the Planning Commission. As a Planning Commission member, he relies on specific Committees to review issues prior to their getting on an Agenda because many times the issue is complex.

Member Lipski asked whether the Planning Commission is governed by the competent material and substantial evidence standard, or does that pertain to the ZBA? Mr. Schultz responded that any decision made by the Planning Commission would be governed by that standard. The decision is governed by the terms of the Ordinance. This is a discretionary Ordinance, essentially, a PUD. If the Applicant were before the Planning Commission with a standard rezoning and nothing else, that would be a legislative decision, a rational-basis standard, a very deferential review. The offer presented tonight is for a discretionary land use decision, and the Planning Commission has the right to say they need more time. This is a big decision and covers a large piece of land that affects the Master Plan. Ultimately, if the Planning Commission makes a decision, the court is going to review it on a competent material and substantial basis test.

Member Lipski said that Member Sprague had raised the question as to what is best for the City, as opposed to the plan not being bad enough to prevent it. Member Lipski felt that what is best for the City is that the Planning Commission evaluate the plans that come before them based on standards that govern them, based on repercussions, cosmetics, safety and those kind of issues with regard to the City. All are components of what’s best for the City. $40,000,000 is a big judgment, and Member Lipski’s taxes are $12,000 per year. He said people are paying more than they need to. If this Planning Commission can come to a conclusion with this particular Applicant that complies with the standards and makes everyone satisfied that the plan won’t be endangering the public trust and welfare at the same time, then a rational decision can be made that is supported by reason and the plan will not be prevented based on fear.

Member Lipski said the Chair Kocan has real issues with this area being a residential road, the speed limits, etc. He did not agree with her stance as he did not think there were a lot of house in this area. He therefore asked Mr. Stimpson, the Traffic Consultant, to comment professionally on whether this plan was bad for the public from a traffic perspective, given the variables of the new road design and 100% occupancy. Mr. Stimpson did not think so. He said that earlier they discussed the p.m. peak hour having about 270 new trips in total. The distribution was roughly equal in all four directions. That is not very much new traffic in a given peak hour. On the flip side, the two-lane roads abutting the site – to the east and south – are carrying about 21,000 vehicles per day. That is a little more than what is preferred. He said he has been studying Ten Mile for at least five years and these numbers have not changed. The conflicts may be at Novi Road, and the congestion there has changed, but the use of Ten Mile to the east has not. The traffic numbers have stabilized. He thought the system would handle the traffic. From a general standpoint, it is good planning to put larger traffic generators at or near crossroads of two arterial roads. Whether it is a high school or a shopping center, this helps spread the traffic.

Member Lipski asked if Mr. Stimpson was referring to curb cuts. He responded that he was referring to having access to two major roads.

Member Lipski said that the Planning Commission needs to focus and it needs to move on. He said the Planning Commission has just proposed a list of twenty items for the Applicant to consider. He suggested that Mr. Quinn state the Applicant’s intention now about what concessions they are willing to propose, and this will allow the Planning Commission and Staff to be comfortable with a date certain that a new PRO plan can be presented containing all of the facts.

Mr. Quinn said that it seems the request is to postpone for sixty days and bring in more information, including a traffic study. He asked whether this will change anybody’s mind on the Planning Commission, of the basic concept of this rezoning. He said the Planning Commission has been given a choice of voting on the rezoning all by itself, voting on the rezoning and the PRO, or to deny. He said that the Planning Commission is asking the Applicant to invest more money into the plan over the next sixty to ninety days that will satisfy their requests, with the exception of the B-1. This plan will include curb cuts, phase one sidewalks, bike paths, the lane in the woodlands and wetlands, etc.. Mr. Quinn asked whether there is a Planning Commission member who is currently not in favor of the rezoning who is willing to change his mind. That, he said, is the issue.

Member Lipski confirmed that the Applicant would still have to get a site plan approved even if the B-2 rezoning was approved. Mr. Schultz had a different view. He said that the Applicant has brought this plan forward and it has been noticed publicly as such. The Planning Commission must react to the B-2 rezoning request. If the Applicant is serious about this plan being a PRO, they will offer things to assure the City of the finality of the plan. Mr. Schultz does not believe the submitted plan meets the requirements of a PRO that can be approved. If the comments discussed at this meeting are incorporated into the plan, then it could be considered. The Ordinance is pretty specific about requiring a plan that shows the incentives – on the plan. If the Applicant wants to submit this plan as a PRO, they must return with a more complete plan.

Mr. Schultz said the Planning Commission could make a recommendation and attach the 18 stipulations. However, this is a big site and a big development, and it would be pretty unusual for it to be approved in a single sitting. The Planning Commission can move forward on just the rezoning if they would like to, as Mr. Quinn said. The PRO plan is missing requirements.

Chair Kocan asked whether the next phase could be accomplished with a letter submitted by the Applicant outlining the incentives, or would a whole new set of plans be required. Mr. Schultz responded that the PRO Ordinance requires a physical document of the PRO plan. A separate PRO Document will list the incentives that may not fit on a plan, things that cannot be physically depicted. This plan will be administered over a number of years, and therefore the plan needs to be a manifestation of the plan, similar to what the Staff is used to seeing. He felt that Ms. McBeth’s comments suggested that a resubmittal of the plan was in order.

Mr. Quinn said that once the final plan and final document are submitted, there will be some minds changed about this project, based on what they have heard at the meeting. Mr. Quinn did not want the plan to be prejudged by its return to the Planning Commission after the Master Plan adoption. If he could have the agreement of the Planning Commission that they would not be prejudiced against the resubmittal, the Applicant would agree to the postponement.

Chair Kocan told Mr. Quinn that it was a point well taken.

Member Lipski asked Mr. Quinn to offer a solution. He felt the Applicant was asking the Planning Commission to either vote or provide a date certain for the return of the plan, reserving their ability to change what is currently planned in the Master Plan. He would be willing to make the motion for the B-2 rezoning if there was enough support on the Planning Commission, but he agreed that if there is not enough information submitted on the PRO the consideration should probably be postponed.

Moved by Member Cassis, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Member Cassis believed that Mr. Quinn and Mr. Weiss have gleaned enough information from tonight’s proceedings. He said that they would have the opportunity to review and discern the minutes of this meeting, and he said that they may want to get together and discuss new and innovative ideas that might enhance this project that will persuade the majority of this Planning Commission to agree with the concept.

Secondly, Member Cassis has most decidedly detected that the planners are not really apprised of all of the ramifications and the necessary ingredients that were supposed to be in the whole PRO package. Therefore, they are hesitating before the Planning Commission. Member Cassis did not think it would be advantageous for either side for this project to proceed rather recklessly. He thought that both sides were experiencing confusion.

Mr. Schmitt injected that the rezoning is not really going to change. There will not be additional information forthcoming on the rezoning. What will change is the PRO and its agreement. Mr. Schmitt is the project manager of this plan and he would expedite the resubmittal. He could have the plan ready for the December meeting. He said it relies on the Applicant’s ability to turn the plan around in short order, by the first week in November. It relies on the plan not returning to the Master Plan and Zoning Committee, which would require Mr. Schmitt to turn the plan around in about one week’s time.

Member Cassis said that a project of this nature is so important that a one or two week delay is not going to make much difference. He noted that the PRO is new to the Planning Commission. He said that everyone has now had the chance to hear everyone’s comments. It is more important that time is taken to deliberate this matter. He encouraged the Applicant to work with the planners. Member Cassis did not wish to provide a date certain.

Chair Kocan read the Ordinance: "In order to be eligible for the proposal in review of a rezoning with planned rezoning overlay, a property owner must propose a rezoning of property to a new zoning district classification and must, as part of such proposal, voluntarily offer certain site specific regulations to be set forth on a PRO plan and in a PRO agreement, to be prepared, which are in material respects, more strict or limiting than the regulations that would apply to the land under the proposed new zoning district."

Chair Kocan said the PRO plan precedes the PRO agreement. She said the Planning Commission does not necessarily need the Pro agreement, nor would they need additional fees between the City and Applicant because the agreement is going to be developed after City Council gives direction. Mr. Schultz said that would be the typical process.

Member Sprague asked Mr. Quinn what he would accept as a reasonable time frame.

Mr. Quinn said that a resubmittal would have to include a landscape plan that proves the design is greater than the requirements. Mr. Zimmerman said that optimistically, the landscape plan could be ready in two weeks. Mr. Quinn said that having a resubmittal complete by November 1, 2004 would be pushing it. He said that January would be acceptable.

Member Sprague asked that the motion reflect a postponement to the first meeting in January 2005.

Mr. Schmitt said that he did not wish to back the City into a corner by providing a date certain in the motion. Mr. Schmitt said that 25 days is a typical review, and if a landscape plan is required, Lance Shipman has not yet reviewed the plans. If additional detail like this will be forthcoming, Mr. Schmitt said that he would prefer to have at least the full 25 days. He was under the impression that the Planning Commission was looking for a submittal plans that reflected the items discussed. If the Applicant can submit the plans in November then the Staff will be prepared for a January return. Mr. Schmitt asked that the plans be submitted before Thanksgiving.

Member Sprague asked that the "no prejudice provision" be included in the motion, as Mr. Quinn had requested. He was an advocate for the project, he just wanted to ensure that it is the right project.

Mr. Schultz said that the "no prejudice provision" did not need to be in the motion because the reality is the plan is coming back to the Planning Commission and City Council as a rezoning request.

Member Cassis rejected the "no prejudice provision" but accepted the time frame. Member Pehrson agreed.

Member Pehrson asked whether the Master Plan and Zoning Committee should see the resubmittal before the Planning Commission.

Chair Kocan felt that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee would review the rezoning more so than the specifics of the PRO. She was not sure whether sending it to the Master Plan and Zoning Committee was a necessary step, so she deferred to the Committee. Planner Darcy Schmitt, the liaison for the Master Plan and Zoning Committee, did not see why the Committee should have to re-visit the PRO because they already voted 4-0 to recommend this possibility. Chair Kocan noted that three of the four Master Plan and Zoning Committee members have changed since that approval.

Member Cassis agreed that it did not need to come back to the Committee.

Member Sprague’s issue was he felt the Applicant needed a good sounding board before the return to the Planning Commission, to avoid finding out too late that there are ten other things that they would also like to see on the plan.

Ms. McBeth offered to inform the Committee if there seems to be an impasse regarding the Applicant’s resubmittal.

Chair Kocan called for a ten minute break.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of George Keros for Preliminary Site Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 22 on the south side of Grand River Avenue, west of Novi Road in the TC-1 (Town Center) District. The Applicant is proposing to renovate an existing 3,600 sq. ft. building and add on an additional 2,496 square feet to the building. The subject property is 4.93 acres with a proposed 6,096 total square foot building (one story).

Ms. Schmitt located the site on an aerial photo. She said the subject property is zoned and master planned for Town Center commercial. A building will be removed from the site as part of this renovation.

The Planning Review noted the following deficiencies on the project. Ms. Schmitt said that some issues pertain to pre-existing conditions, and there are some minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

A ZBA variance for five feet is required for the front yard parking setback for the parking addition along the east side of the site (15 feet proposed, twenty feet required).

A ZBA variance of ten feet is required for the side yard parking setback for the parking addition along the east side of the site (zero feet proposed, ten feet required).

A ZBA variance of 3.5 feet is required for the drive (21.5 feet to 23 feet proposed, 24 feet required).

The property has no wetlands. There are medium woodlands on the property housing phases one and two, but not on this portion of the property.

The Landscape Review noted the following deficiencies on the project. There are also minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

A Planning Commission Waiver is required for five feet of greenbelt along Grand River Avenue.

A Planning Commission Waiver is required for parking lot landscaping of 765 square feet (4,507 feet proposed, 5,272 feet required).

A Planning Commission Waiver is required for one additional parking space without a landscaped island along the west side of the property (16 parking spaces proposed, maximum of 15 spaces allowed).

A Planning Commission Waiver is required for six canopy trees/evergreen trees and eight ornamental trees (nine canopy trees/evergreen trees required, three provided, and 14 ornamental required, six provided).

A ZBA variance of four feet of landscaping around the perimeter of the building is required (zero feet proposed, four feet required);

The Traffic Review, Engineering Review, Façade Review and Fire Department Review all indicate the plan meets requirements. Ms. Schmitt passed around the façade board.

Ron Nuechterlein represented the Applicant. He introduced George Keros, landlord; Engineering Consultant George Norberg; Architect Chuck Fossey of Wah Yee Associates; and Landscape Architect Karen Gorman.

Mr. Nuechterlein thanked the City for their expediency in reviewing this plan, as the Applicant is working in a tight due diligence time frame. This existing building was once known as Reid Lighting and as an antique shop. It has been vacant for two years.

The Applicant has attempted to design this addition to be harmonious to the existing City Center Plaza and to improve the appearance by demolishing the storage building and updating the façade. This renovation will be a benefit to the City. Their requests for variances and waivers are the result of working with pre-existing conditions.

No one from the audience wished to speak, so Chair Kocan closed the Public Hearing.

Member Sprague asked what waivers and variances were the result of pre-existing conditions. Ms. Schmitt responded that the front yard setback is pre-existing. If this were remedied the Applicant would lose a parking space so the Planning Department’s recommendation is to grant the waiver. The side yard setback follows the existing parking and is recommended to be designed in similar fashion. The drive variance is a pre-existing condition, and the proposed design minimizes the problems.

Landscape Architect Lance Shipman said the five-foot greenbelt variance along Grand River saves a parking space. The landscape variances and waivers are existing condition situations. The original phases were designed under different standards. The Applicant has been working with the City.

Member Cassis asked if the Applicant would address the dumpster. Mr. Nuechterlein said that the Traffic Review indicated that the sightline could be adversely affected by the dumpster. They plan on moving the dumpster to lessen that impact. They will continue to work with the City.

Member Cassis asked about the handicapped parking. Mr. Nuechterlein said that eight feet satisfies the ADA requirements. However, they will adjust their parking spaces to create two nine-foot wide parking spaces. The handicapped ramp will be added to the plan.

Member Cassis appreciated this Applicant taking such an odd building and updating its use. He felt that this plan improves an eyesore and the traffic situation. Because the hardships are not self-created, Member Cassis felt that the variances requested should be granted. Member Cassis encouraged the Planning Commission to move this plan’s process forward.

Chair Kocan confirmed with Mr. Schultz that the ZBA variance requests must go before that board. She confirmed that the Planning Commission can forward their support of this plan to the ZBA for their consideration.

Member Pehrson appreciated that the Applicant has been working with the City on this design. He agreed too, that the variances are not self-created.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

Mr. Shipman asked about the five-foot variance for the east side of the building.

Chair Kocan confirmed that the Applicant is still working on the berming of the site. Mr. Shipman said that this plan does not reflect the Applicant’s receipt of the various reviews.

Chair Kocan asked whether handicapped parking was required on both sides of the building. Ms. Schmitt said that the back side is more of an employee entrance. The Applicant is only required to have one clear access for handicapped entry. The Building Department may require more once they see the inside layout of the building.

Chair Kocan noted that there is an arrow for one-way egress from the eastern-most drive. She confirmed that the Applicant plans to maintain the "right-out" only on that drive.

Chair Kocan asked for clarification on the traffic comments. Mr. Nuechterlein said that it was suggested that certain spaces be made angular, but in the end that would reduce the parking count.

Chair Kocan thought that perhaps the entrance should be closed completely. However, upon hearing the Staff’s comments about the pre-existing conditions, she understood the situation and appreciated what this Applicant is undertaking.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Chair Kocan said that City Council has changed their starting time to 7:00 p.m. and therefore this issue is being brought before the Planning Commission for the same consideration.

Member Lipski preferred 7:30 p.m. Chair Kocan said that if even one member has an issue with 7:00 p.m., then it shouldn’t be considered.

The Planning Commission members turned in their corrections for incorporation into the minutes.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

There were no Consent Agenda Removals for Commission Action.

There were no Matters for Discussion.

Chair Kocan noted that the next three meetings will have heavier agendas than usual. She said that if the Planning Commission desired, they could add a second meeting to December to accommodate some of the plans.

No one from the audience wished to participate.

Moved by Member Sprague,

The meeting adjourned at 12:28 p.m.

MON 10/18/04 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 10/18/04 IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE 7:00 PM

WED 10/27/04 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 11/08/04 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:30 PM

TUE 11/09/04 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

WED 11/10/04 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

Transcribed by Jane L. Schimpf, October 29, 2004 Signature on File

Approved: November 10, 2004 Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant