Chair Kocan called the meeting to order at or about 7:30 p.m.

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

Absent: Members Richard Gaul, Wayne Wrobel (excused)

Also Present: Barbara McBeth, Director of Planning; Tim Schmitt, Planner; Mark Spencer, Planner; David Gillam, City Attorney

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

Chair Kocan added a Preliminary Budget Discussion to the Agenda.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Sprague:

No one from the audience wished to speak. Chair Kocan closed the first Audience Participation.

Member Sprague stated there was no correspondence to share.

Chair Kocan said that the Implementation Committee would be meeting the following week. The CIP Committee may meet in the following week as well.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth told the Planning Commission that the Island Lake RUD amendments were heard at the City Council. One approved the barn relocation and the other dealt with combining the ten-acre parcel on Ten Mile into the RUD but was not approved based on a tie vote. Ms. McBeth said she would keep the Planning Commission informed.

Ms. McBeth told the Planning Commission that the handwritten sheets of paper in the lobby are the result of City Council’s goal-setting session. The Planning Commission will get a copy of the City’s goals once they have been formalized in written form.

Ms. McBeth said that the neighborhood association breakfast would be held on January 29, 2005. The breakfast will be from 9:00 to 11:00 a.m. and the Mayor would be giving a State of the City address to the attendees.

There was no Consent Agenda.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Marcos Makohon for possible recommendation to City Council for rezoning on property in Section 29, at the southwest corner of Ten Mile and Beck Roads, from R-1, single Family Residential, to OS-1, Office Service. The subject property is approximately 4.0 acres.

Planner Tim Schmitt located the property on an aerial map. To the north is Ten Mile and to the east is Beck Road. Broadmoor Park is across Beck Road to the east. Briarwood Village is to the northeast. Greenwood Oaks is to the northwest. To the west is Echo Valley Estates. Surrounding the property are several acreage parcels. South of Ten Mile they are used for single family homes. North of Ten Mile is a large vacant property owned by the former owner of the subject property.

Mr. Schmitt said that the property is currently zoned R-1, single family residential. There is a small amount of R-4 zoning on Briarwood Village to the northeast. The northeast corner of Ten Mile and Beck Road is zoned B-1 as a result of a consent judgment between the City and the developer of Briarwood Village, and master planned according to its use, local commercial. The subject properties and it surroundings are master planned for single family residential uses. There is also a private park running through Broadmoor Park.

Mr. Schmitt said that there are no woodlands on the subject property. There is a large stand of woodlands to the south and west. Any woodland impacts would be addressed at the time of site plan review. There are no regulated wetlands on the subject property.

Mr. Schmitt said that a similar request on this property came forward to the Planning Commission on December 4, 2002. That request was to amend the Master Plan to designate the subject property as local commercial. There was a rezoning request pending at the time. The request was abandoned by the owners once the request to amend the Master Plan was denied.

Mr. Schmitt said the K-4 Architecture submitted this rezoning request, then put it on hold for a short time before reactivating it. There are no requests to amend the Master Plan from its single family designation.

Mr. Schmitt said that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee discussed this request in late 2003. The Master Plan and Zoning Committee did not send forward a recommendation because no consensus could be reached.

Mr. Schmitt said that the Planning Department does not recommend approval of the rezoning request. First and foremost, it would not be in compliance with the Master Plan for Land Use. This would be one of the only non-residential developments in the corridor from Novi Road, more importantly Taft Road, to the west end of the City. Mr. Schmitt reiterated that Briarwood Village is the result of a lawsuit, and there was some disdain for the center by the community.

Mr. Schmitt said that the uses in the OS-1 District are similar to the B-3 service-type uses: bank, small office building, personal service establishment, but not retail component. Any professional office or medical building would be allowed in OS-1. Churches and hospitals are permitted. Special Land Use options include day cares, nurseries and indoor recreation facilities. There is no maximum lot coverage in this district. Under the current zoning, the allowed uses include single family homes, greenhouse, parks, farms, and home occupations subject to other regulations in the Ordinance. As a Special Land Use, allowed uses would be a church, daycares, schools. The minimum lot size would be one-half acre with 120 feet of frontage. The maximum height would be 35 feet or 2.5 stories. The maximum density would be 1.65 dwelling units to the acre, or about four units.

Mr. Schmitt said that the Traffic Review provided a trip generation analysis. The review recommended denial of the request due to the additional traffic that it would generate above and beyond the single-family residential generated traffic. With four units, 54 daily trips would be expected. An office/bank concept could yield upwards of 1,300 daily trips.

The Engineering Review indicated that the water main is directly adjacent to the parcel and would be ready to serve the property. The sanitary sewer is just a short distance away but the capacity does exist to serve the property.

There is no Planned Rezoning Overlay associated with this rezoning. There are two conceptual plans provided to the Planning Commission in their packets; these were used to provide a basis for the Traffic Study.

Member Gutman asked to be recused due to potential conflict of interest; representatives of the development work at Member Gutman’s company.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Sprague:

Marcos Makohon of K-4 Architecture addressed the Planning Commission. He introduced his legal team of Miller and Canfield, the Farbman Group, who are the brokers of the site.

Mr. Makohon said that the net of this property is about 2.91 acres. He stated that the Master Plan does not have vision for this particular site. At 2.91 net acres, it will only net four units. The additional burden of 120-foot frontages also applies to the property.

Mr. Makohon showed the Planning Commission a mock-up of a four-resident development. This would create four driveways on Ten Mile and Beck Road. It is less than desirable for the community.

Mr. Makohon said that when they became become involved with this site, they determined that OS-1 was a district that would provide the community with the right mix of professional and personal services. Mr. Makohon said his development would boast a financial institution with some sort of office building or medical building.

Mr. Makohon said the rezoning would allow the Planning Commission the opportunity to review a full site plan of his proposed development. He said that OS-1 would be the least invasive district to the neighboring property owners. He said that they met with those property owners last year and showed them their conceptual ideas for the site. Mr. Makohon said that the banking tenant would have limited operating hours that will not coincide with morning or afternoon rush hours. He said that the bank would draw from the neighborhoods and not from ten or fifteen miles away.

Mr. Makohon said that the OS-1 district caters to personal services. It is not a commercial zoning. He said that he was aware of his obligations to bring water and sewer to this site. He said that it was never their intent to bring retail to this site, and that the Citizen Survey requesting a hold on more retail does not apply to this request.

Mr. Makohon commented on the traffic analysis. He said that this site would not impact the peak traffic hours. He also said that Beck Road’s future is uncertain in light of the new interchange being built at I-96. He closed by stating in stated that his intent was to bring a neighborhood service center to that corner.

Member Sprague read the Public Hearing response letters into the record:

Chair Kocan opened the floor for public comment:

Nan Otting, President of Broadmoor Park Homeowners Association, 47310 Baker Street, Novi: Objected because there are vacant properties in the City already. She said that it is a single family residential area. She said that the traffic already makes it difficult to go left or right from Baker Street.

John Kuenzel, 23819 Heartwood, Novi: Objected to the rezoning. He said the people who live in the area want it to remain residential. Rezoning the land is incompatible with the adjacent uses and the Master Plan. He said that at least ten cars are stacking at the lights, and cars on this site would not have an easy time of merging out from the parking lot. He said this plan would add hundreds of cars to the intersection. He said that Briarpointe Plaza just filled their last vacancy. There is a vacancy at Westmarket Square. There are at least six vacancies at the Novi Town Center. There are five vacancies at Main Street. City Center has four vacancies. Pine Ridge Center has three vacancies. These vacancies total 18, and are only the ones he was able to count; he said the City owes it to the existing landlords not to bring more commercial into the City. He said the City owes it to the residents of the area.

Mitch Ober, 21739 Rathlone Drive: Opposed the request. He said that Grand River has ample office buildings. He said that children play in the area. He said that if this corner changes, then the road will have to be widened, and that the bypass traffic between M-14 and I-96 will increase. Too much office space does not create a healthy City. Bringing water and sewer to this site does not benefit the community.

Mike Schuloff, 24154 Trafalgar Ct: Was confused because the last time this site came out there was a large turnout from the community. At that time the various disciplines objected to a change in zoning. He thought the City should have denied the request right then and there, that the request should not be able to come back before the Planning Commission. There are vacant parcels on the southeast, southwest and northwest corners. It is all residential at this time. The community does not want the zoning to change. He asked for access to the information on the people who supported their plan. He reiterated that the City should stop the rezoning requests for this corner once and for all. Chair Kocan explained to this resident that the 2002 request before the Planning Commission was a Master Plan update to commercial, not office; she said this is a different and separate request. She also explained that the Planning Commission is only providing a recommendation to City Council and that City Council would make the final determination.

Dennis Ringvelski, 24359 Nantucket Drive: Formed "Citizens for Responsible Development" to prevent the development of the northeast corner in the past. He said that they fought for the land to remain residential that ultimately became Briarpointe Plaza. He questioned why there wasn’t a mass mailing greater than the required 300 feet to inform the residents in the area. He said that he bought his property because the entire area was zoned and master planned residential. He said that if this corner is rezoned the northwest corner will then fight to develop commercial as well.

Reagan Schwarzlose, 23937 Beck Road: Spoke on behalf of himself and his neighbor, Virgian Lauinger (23973 Beck Road); they own the two parcels immediately south of this property. He objected for traffic reasons, as it is already difficult for him to leave his property. He bought his home knowing the area was master planned for residential. The immediately impact to the value of his home, if it abutted commercial), was also his concern. He noted that banking hours are expanding beyond their traditional hours.

Larry Czekaj, 24383 Nantucket Drive: Represented himself and the Greenwood Oaks subdivision, as he is the president of their association. He stated that he would be able to have most if not all of the Greenwood Oaks residents sign a petition against this rezoning. He said that it was likely the developer carved the corner off of this section because it would have made sense to him that someday the corners would develop with some sort of commercial. He did not believe that the ownership had changed hands yet on the subject property. He noted that the office building at Ten Mile and Taft always has a few vacancies, and he doubted that the corner of Ten Mile and Beck warranted an office building.

Chair Kocan closed the Public Hearing. She reminded the meeting attendees that the Planning Commission would be sending a recommendation only to the City Council on the request to rezone the property from R-1 to OS-1.

Member Sprague was impressed with the concerned citizens who are always available to fight for this corner. Member Sprague said that there must be a balance between the landowner and the neighboring landowners. In this case, it has been zoned residential for at least thirty years, and he did not see a pressing need to change the rezoning. He liked office better than commercial, but he liked residential better. He said that the traffic at this corner is tough. He did not support the request.

Member Pehrson said that the intersection will not support the request. The developer should be invited to make whatever requests he wants for this property, but timing is an issue. At this time Member Pehrson noted that the traffic is already bad at this corner, without Legacy Parc and Island Lake in full force. He said that the residential zoning in this area has been consistent, and the people have been consistent in demanding residential zoning. He said that the City must also remain consistent. Member Pehrson did not support the request.

Member Cassis agreed with the comments already made. He appreciates listening to all comments from all sides, and did not feel that people should be prohibited from expressing their opinions. He agreed that the traffic exists on Ten Mile and Beck. He said the roads are too narrow. The City has already declined to widen Ten Mile. That decision indicated that the Master Plan was in play. Member Cassis said that if this corner is rezoned, then the northwest corner will also come forward. He did not support the request.

Member Avdoulos echoed the previously stated concerns. He said that the Master Plan has tried to keep the rural character in this quadrant of the City. He agreed that a change to the zoning on this corner would spur the same request on the northwest corner. He said that northwest landowner has met with the Master Plan and Zoning Committee and has already been told that they saw no need to change the zoning on that corner, but that he was more than welcome to meet with the area residents to discuss the matter. Member Avdoulos said there were enough services available within the mile of the corner that changing the zoning on this corner was unwarranted. He did not believe that every corner needed to be filled with commercial.

Member Avdoulos said that people state the reason they choose to move to this area of the City is because of its character. They come because of the density of the area.

Member Avdoulos said that requesting an office zoning is different that commercial, but the hours of operation will have to accommodate the office uses. He said that a bank will generate a lot more traffic. Member Avdoulos said that the character of this area is appealing and should be maintained. He was not in favor of the request.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, supported by Member Sprague:

Chair Kocan supported the motion. She said that in December 2002 it was discussed how this intersection is a blind intersection with road elevation problems. There are line-of-sight issues. For the health, safety and welfare of the people in the area, it will be difficult to consider a request that would increase traffic by 1, 297 cars per day, as opposed to a residential development that would increase the traffic by 54 cars per day. She said there is a traffic problem along Ten Mile. She maintained that Ten Mile is a residential corridor.

Chair Kocan asked City Attorney David Gillam whether it was acceptable for Member Lipski to abstain. Mr. Gillam said that the Planning Commission rules state that a member is expected to vote unless there is a clear conflict of interest or the member is excused.

Member Lipski stated that there may become a conflict of interest and he did not want to represent one position or the other. Mr. Gillam said that as long as there was a potential for conflict that it would be acceptable for someone to make the motion to excuse Member Lipski.

Moved by Member Cassis, seconded by Member Sprague:

Chair Kocan said that typically the recusal occurs before the request is heard. She would like to hear from the City regarding this issue. She was uncomfortable with the turn of events but she would support the motion.

Chair Kocan told the audience that the issue would go before City Council, and that there would not be any Public Hearing notices mailed or published for the request to be heard by City Council. Chair Kocan told a member of the audience that he could pick up information relating to the Public Hearing from Tim Schmitt at City Hall.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Tony J. Gallo for possible recommendation to City Council for rezoning on property in Section 1, south of Fourteen Mile Road and west of Haggerty Road, behind the Speedway gas station, from OST, Office Service Technology, to B-3, General Business. The ell-shaped property is 1.33 acres.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth informed the Planning Commission that Mr. Gallo misunderstood his onsite rezoning sign must be posted prior to the Public Hearing, not just before the City Council hearing. The City Attorney suggested that the Planning Commission hold the Public Hearing with comments at this meeting, and continue the hearing to a future meeting after the signs have been properly placed on the property. Mr. Gallo was present at the meeting and planned to address the Planning Commission and offer his apologies.

Planner Tim Schmitt located the property on an aerial photo. To the south of the property is land that previously was considered by the Planning Commission for the North Novi Medical building. That request was turned down. North Novi Medical Phase 1 is located further to the west. The Haggerty pumping station is further west as well. To the north is Commerce Township, and a shopping center is on that corner. To the northeast is a shopping center in West Bloomfield Township. To the southeast and east is a small strip center in the City of Farmington Hills.

The corner property (the Speedway) is one of four properties in the area that was not mass-rezoned to OST in the 1990s. The other properties are a Speedway at Twelve and Haggerty, the former Cooker building and a third property previously approved for a Holiday Inn Express. The remainder of the corridor is OST. The surrounding communities are zoned commercial consistent with Novi’s B-2 zoning.

The Master Plan calls for office uses throughout the corridor. The new Master Plan even calls for an office use for the Speedway property at the corner of Fourteen Mile and Haggerty.

There are no regulated wetlands on the subject property. There are light woodlands on the south edge of the property. The environmental impact would be analyzed and mitigated at the time of site plan review.

Mr. Schmitt said that the Planning Staff does not recommend approval of the rezoning request. It is not in compliance with the Master Plan. It is contrary to the intent of the OST rezoning, which sought to rezone the entire corridor for office-type uses.

B-3 zoning provides for general retail, restaurants, drive-throughs, car washes, car showrooms, etc. A Special Land Use provides for the outdoor sales of vehicles and drive-throughs. The OST provides for general office, medical office, research and development, computer labs and uses of that nature. Staff did not analyze the B-2 district because it requires two acres. The other alternative would be the B-1 district – retail, grocery stores, pet stores – but no restaurants or drive-throughs. B-3 is more automobile-oriented.

The Citizen Perception Survey indicated a desire within the community to maintain the commercial in its current locations and concentrate any future development along Grand River. The recent Master Plan update did not recommend changing the planning on the subject property.

Mr. Schmitt also said that the Applicant has not filed a Planned Rezoning Overlay application.

The Traffic Review did not mention any real difference between OST traffic and the traffic this use would generate. The Engineering Review does not provide major comment on the infrastructure, as the site would be served from Commerce Township for both water and sewer.

Mr. Schmitt said that the Applicant has met with the City and has discussed coming in under the Public Act 579. This Act allows contract zoning, which is a clear shift in policy, especially in the State of Michigan. The Act states that the Applicant can set forth a set of conditions and the City can accept said conditions in exchange for a rezoning. The City Attorney provided their comment on this Act and it was provided to the Planning Commission for review. Basically, the City’s PRO Overlay acts in much the same way. The benefit to the City is that the PRO has clear and defined standards regarding what should be submitted. The Public Act 579 does not provide standards. City Council will have to determine what course they might wish to take regarding the use of this Public Act. The Planning Department believes that the use of the PRO would be more appropriate, if conditions were offered and the intent of the Ordinance was met. This would require a separate application and separate Public Hearing notice.

Mr. Schmitt said that the onsite rezoning sign is required to be in place for a full fifteen days prior to the Public Hearing. This item will likely return to the Planning Commission on the second Agenda for February (February 23, 2005).

Mr. Jerry Odom addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of the Applicant. He apologized to the Planning Commission for not placing the sign on the property in an efficient manner.

Mr. Odom said that his company is also working on a site located at Eight Mile and Haggerty. The subject property was purchased on a contingency basis. His business is market-driven. He said that the right location will result in a successful car wash. The subject site provides for this use, not otherwise found in the area. There is a considerable amount of traffic on both Fourteen Mile and Haggerty. The capture rate for a car wash relies on the number of passing vehicles. This corner provides for an appropriate number of passing cars.

Mr. Odom said that the other three corners of this intersection are developed with intense uses. This will not change in the foreseeable future. This site is adjacent to B-3 zoning and an existing gas station. Two of the boundary lines of the site abut the gas station.

The part of the site under consideration is 125 feet wide by 250 feet deep, as the Applicant is only using the one portion of the site. The balance of the property would be placed in their inventory and may be used at a later date for a different purpose. Mr. Odom said that this use would bring a lot of dollars back into the City from the surrounding communities.

Mr. Odom said that they have been before the Master Plan and Zoning Committee on September 2, 2004 and again on October 7, 2004. He said that it was fair to say that the use has been discussed thoroughly. There were negative issues raised, and Mr. Odom said they addressed those issues as well as they could. There was a basic consensus that the reasons they listed for why they purchased the property were fairly well accepted as being factual. The Committee and Planning Department recognized too, that the narrowness of this piece on both road frontages (Haggerty Road and Fourteen Mile) would make this a difficult property to develop without major variance and waivers. The setbacks associated with OST zoning would hinder the development of the site. Mr. Odom said that their intention is to build an auto wash in a B-3 zoning without any variances.

Mr. Odom said they received the Planning Review on January 5, 2005 and they were not prepared for the review that they received. They did not think the disapproval would be quite as strong as it came out in the Staff report. They concluded that two or three themes seemed to drive the report. Mr. Odom said that there seems to be concern about the types of uses that could be allowed in the requested zoning district. He said that another issue seemed to be the Citizen Survey and the manner in which the Staff perceived their comments. He thought the survey indicated that the citizens felt their needs were already being taken care of within the community. He said that the use they are proposing is not the typical retail use – it is a consumer service.

Mr. Odom said that they were looking at this site from a different perspective than the Planning Department. Mr. Odom said they were looking at it from a business needs perspective. A melding of the two positions would be beneficial to both sides, he said. Therefore, they have now considered the Public Act 579. They reviewed the Planning Report, and now they would like to amend their request to make use of the Public Act. They have suggested that they would only request the rezoning on the 125 x 250 foot section on the easterly side. They would allow the OST zoning to remain on the balance of the property. He said that the Planning Review has indicated that the community would be amenable to granting waivers on the OST zoned piece.

Mr. Odom said that they have developed a new type of building specifically for Novi. Community and community needs, where carwashes are concerned, have changed over the years. Typically they were located in areas of intense uses. Now the consumer wants them located closer to where they live, convenient to their paths of travel. People are also looking for a different style of architecture. Mr. Odom said that their new building satisfies this concept. Mr. Odom said that part of the concessions associated with their Public Act 579 submittal would be to offer this upscale style of building. Mr. Odom said they would be willing to enter into an agreement, stating if they did not complete their plan within two years they would allow the land to revert to the OST zoning. Mr. Odom encouraged the Planning Commission to consider his request.

Chair Kocan opened the floor for public comment. She noted that the Public Hearing would continue on a later date. City Attorney David Gillam said that even though there wasn’t a sign posted on the property, there could be comments from people who received a Public Hearing notice, read the Public Hearing notice in the paper, or looked at the Agenda posted on the City’s web site. He said it would be appropriate to take comment from those people. He did not necessarily endorse further comment from the Planning Commission since the plan will be coming back in the future.

Chair Kocan asked Mr. Gillam to comment of the Public Act 579. He responded that the Act is hot off the press. The City Attorney’s office is concerned that there are no identifiable standards within the Act. The City Attorney’s office recommends that the City rely on the PRO process, which does have standards, as the PRO and the Act both serve the same purpose. Mr. Gillam said that City Council will also have to answer whether or not they are comfortable in the give and take that Act 579 anticipates, without having benefit of a formal review process in place (Planning Commission input, public input, consultant input). That determination must come from the City Council. If the Council indicates that they would like the City Attorney to engage in the negotiation process, they will do so.

Member Cassis asked Mr. Odom whether his intention was to use only a portion of the land for the carwash. Mr. Odom said that was correct. Member Cassis asked whether the Applicant wanted to build something else on the remainder of the land. Mr. Odom said that was correct, at some point in time. He said that the seller of the parcel would not split the land.

Member Cassis asked the Applicant if he was under the impression that the Staff would prefer that this lot be split in two. Mr. Odom said he was under the impression that the Staff would prefer the land to remain OST. Member Cassis thought that he heard the Applicant say that the Staff stated that splitting the land was a better approach, but the Applicant said that splitting land was their idea. Mr. Schmitt responded that the Staff has yet to consider the plan coming forward under Public Act 579.

Member Cassis asked how many employees are on the schedule at one time. Mr. Odom said that there would be three or four employees. Mr. Odom said this was a tunnel wash, where the driver remains in his car throughout the process. There would be vacuums on the north side of the building. The employee parking would also be on the north side. Member Cassis questioned the Applicant’s ability to provide all of this on a property that is 125 feet wide. Mr. Odom said the building is only thirty feet wide. The OST zoning on this property provides for a 25-foot wide building.

Member Cassis asked whether there would be confusion among the entering and exiting drivers. Mr. Odom said there would not be any confusion, as evidenced by ten or fifteen other carwashes they have built with the thirty-foot wide entrance.

Chair Kocan said that there would be a "finger" remaining if the property were developed as proposed. She questioned whether the finger was developable. Mr. Odom said that finger could be used for a parking location. They left the finger in place as a buffer. It is usable for parking and will help separate the B-3 use from the OST to the west.

Chair Kocan asked whether it would be prudent for the Planning Commission make a motion requesting a ruling from City Council as to whether they would like this Applicant to pursue this plan via the Public Act 579 or the PRO Ordinance. Mr. Schmitt said that the review on this request was handled as a straight rezoning. He said that that the Planning Commission can act on the rezoning. The City Council can make a decision on the 579 request, although the Planning Department’s position will be to suggest that the plan move forward as a PRO request. Mr. Schmitt said that there isn’t much to the Public Act 579 on which to react.

Chair Kocan asked Mr. Gillam to respond to the issue. Mr. Gillam said that there is a window of four to seven weeks to work within - the sign must be up for at least fifteen days before the Public Hearing and there are scheduling issues. He thought that provided enough time for City Council to weigh in on the matter. He said that the Planning Commission, the Applicant, or both, could make the request of the City Council.

Chair Kocan thought it would be a good idea so that the Applicant is not left in limbo.

Member Cassis said the Applicant should have to provide his 579 concessions on paper for review. Stating his declarations at the meeting does not provide enough time for the Planning Commission to consider the issue in whole. Member Cassis thought that it was to the Applicant’s advantage to use the PRO instead of the Public Act 579, which might further complicate the matter.

Member Lipski said that the use of Public Act 579 seemed to be discretionary, so it would behoove the Applicant to find out if the City Council is going to allow the plan to move forward under that direction. Mr. Lipski thought issues like restriction agreements for equitable servitude can be submitted under 579, but it must first be determined whether the City will stick with the existing PRO policy.

Moved by Member Lipski, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Member Cassis asked whether this motion pertained to this project, or just to the concept of using Public Act 579 in Novi in general. Chair Kocan said that the intent is for City Council to provide a policy statement on the use of Public Act 579 in general. This plan would be used as an example.

Member Avdoulos agreed that he would like to hear from City Council. Member Avdoulos said that the minutes from the Master Plan and Zoning Committee outline the various concerns raised about this rezoning request. He said the PRO allows the Planning Commission to consider the request in conjunction with a plan so they can come to a comfortable agreement. He said that the City has yet to function with a Public Act 579, and he wondered too, whether it was designed for municipalities without a PRO Ordinance. He preferred to make use of the PRO Ordinance.

Chair Kocan suggested that Ms. McBeth, Mr. Schmitt and Mr. Gillam to work together on getting this placed on the City Council Agenda. Ms. McBeth said that would be acceptable.

Chair Kocan asked for clarification from the City Attorney on what motion language should be used for this rezoning request. Mr. Gillam said that the Applicant is getting his sign up, and that will affect when the Public Hearing can resume. He said that the Planning Commission can move to set the meeting for the next available date once the sign is up and the requirements of the Planning Commission’s policies and procedures can be met.

Moved by Member Cassis, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Member Lipski suggested that the Applicant consider the issues that were discussed at the Master Plan and Zoning Committee, such as what happens to cars that enter and the driver changes his mind about getting a car wash. He thought that the plan before the Planning Commission did not provide for an escape route. Mr. Odom said that there was, and Member Lipski suggested that he make subsequent plans more complete.

Member Lipski recommended that the Applicant move forward under the PRO to prevent wasting money on a 579 application that may not be acceptable to the City. Member Lipski said that he was concerned if the Applicant goes bankrupt, sells its assets or does an IPO, the equitable servitude remains with the land; he would not like to see this situation create a lawsuit scenario for the City. He suggested that the Applicant provide a statement to City Council that reassures the City of continued use of this land in an acceptable manner.

At 9:37 p.m. Chair Kocan called for a short break.

ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT 18.191

The Public Hearing was opened for the Planning Commission’s recommendation to City Council to amend Chapter 28, the City of Novi Sign Ordinance, for the purpose of providing new regulations for freestanding tenant identification ground signs in the B-1, B-2, B-3, RC, GE, TC, TC-1, I-1, I-2, OS-1, OS-2, OSC, and OST zoning districts..

Planner Tim Schmitt told the Planning Commission that this amendment would essentially allow multiple signage in certain circumstances, i.e., buildings with multiple tenants. He said that the Planning Commission had been provided with the case history.

Mr. Schmitt said that the Novi Town Center went to the ZBA in late 2003 requesting a variance to allow their eight anchor stores to have their names on the signs located at Novi Road and at Grand River Avenue. The ZBA turned down the request, and did not provide further comment, other than they felt the request was excessive.

Mr. Schmitt said that the Ordinance Review Committee at the time picked up the issue for review. At that time the Committee was headed be Mayor Pro Tem Bononi. The Planning Department undertook a brief study with the assistance of the Planning Advisory Service to determine how this situation is handled around the country. After several meetings with the Ordinance Review Committee, a draft was formulated by the City Attorney’s office, which was then sent to City Council. The City Council referred it back to the Planning Commission for a Public Hearing. The Planning Commission referred it back to the Implementation Committee. The Implementation Committee met on the issue several times in late 2004 and made some changes to the proposed. It originally began as a change to the Town Center District. It has now been expanded to include all non-residential developments.

Mr. Schmitt said that the Implementation Committee was luke warm on the idea. Their concern and the Planning Department’s concern is that the entire Sign Ordinance should be looked at, to fix all of the problems. This would be just a bandaid. The Planning Department is not entirely sure how this amendment will work. He said that Northern Equities would speak later in the evening on their position.

Chair Kocan asked Mr. Schmitt to summarize what this Ordinance amendment will allow. Mr. Schmitt said that typically one sign is allowed – ground or wall – per development. There are some exceptions. Mr. Schmitt used the OST District to expound. He said an office building may have more than one tenant. There are signs in front of the building in the Haggerty Corridor Corporate Park. However, there are tenants that would like their names on the buildings as well. The tenant is only allowed the sign on the wall or on the ground. To get both, they would have to go to the ZBA. Mr. Schmitt said that as much as 60% of the ZBA caseload is Sign Ordinance related. The need is there for something to address the multiple tenant situation. The question is whether this amendment will fix the problem.

Chair Kocan reiterated that the current Ordinance allows for a ground or wall sign for business identification. Mr. Schmitt said that there can be a ground sign that provides the name of the park or the building, but none of the tenant names, if they have already placed their name on the building.

Chair Kocan continued that this Ordinance amendment would allow a sign in addition to that, when there are four or more businesses. It is not written solely for shopping centers, but also for industrial parks. Mr. Schmitt said it would apply to any non-residential district.

Member Avdoulos said another example is Promenade, which has a sign listing four or more business at the road. Within the development, Target and whoever else have wall signs. Mr. Schmitt said this Ordinance will work a little differently, but essentially that is what this amendment will do.

Chair Kocan asked Member Avdoulos to read the correspondence into the record.

Brain Hughes, Northern Equities, 39000 Country Club Drive, Farmington Hills: Encouraged the updating of the Sign Ordinance. Their request is for the approval of building and monument signage. This would provide for better visibility and would address safety concerns. They also request a change to the temporary signage section of the Ordinance so that their properties can be adequately marketed. The ZBA has agreed on all of Northern Equities cases before them. This is time consuming and expensive for the Applicant and the City.

Cindy Uglow, Neighborhood Services, Code Compliance, City of Novi: Objected to the Sign Ordinance amendment.

Chair Kocan opened the floor for public comment:

Bill Lutz, Sign Graphics, 39255 Country Club Drive, Farmington Hills: They are Northern Equities’ sign consultant. They master plan for campus type developments. The problem as he saw it is the lack of ability for a major tenant to have proper signage. On two story buildings – in the office and industrial parks – there is a 60-40 split of two-story/one story buildings. These tenants are taking a substantial amount of square footage, but must come before the ZBA to get appropriate signage. In many cases, the tenants will not sign a lease unless they can have sign recognition. This is also happening in other communities. He reiterated that there is a need for adequate signage. He agreed that the entire Sign Ordinance needs to be updated – both the issues of permanent and temporary signage. The Ordinance currently allows for large marketing signs after the building permit has been obtained, but not before. This affects the ability of a developer to market his property. That is a key element in marketing the properties. The ZBA just heard this case for the property at Twelve Mile and Haggerty. They allowed the early sign placement because they understood the need for it. The development is proceeding. He asked that the Ordinance be reviewed again, not just for the free standing signs, but for wall signage and temporary signage. He recommended the whole package go together to City Council.

Chair Kocan closed the Public Hearing.

Chair Kocan said she was the Chair of the Implementation Committee. She explained that the request from City Council was to address this specific issue, even though the Committee had greater concerns. She felt that the Implementation Committee had a number of concerns noted in the minutes that weren’t specifically listed in the motion. She said that her understanding was that the Implementation Committee would bring this issue forward and explain the issues they had to the Planning Commission. Until direction is given to the Planning Commission (Implementation Committee) by City Council, the Committee did not feel as though they could pursue a Sign Ordinance overhaul. This Ordinance is under City Council purview. She noted that Northern Equities has brought up some other issues as well – proportionate signage, etc. The ZBA would like to give input. Code Compliance Officer Alan Amolsch would like to give input. The Traffic Consultant has indicated that he has signage experience, and the sign standards from twenty years ago are no longer effective.

Member Avdoulos thought the minutes described the issues relating to the Sign Ordinance. The industry today has evolved from when this Ordinance was created. There is so much available regarding aesthetics, backlighting, integrated lighting, etc. There is a myriad of things that could be done to allow tasteful, quality signage. In the past people were concerned that signage would take over the buildings, so the Ordinance reduced the amount of signage allowed.

Member Avdoulos said he is working on the St. Joseph’s Hospital campus in Ann Arbor, and the issue there is the way-finding signage. People need clear signage. Vision has changed along with the aging population. Incoming businesses need signage to be successful. On the other hand, no one wants to inundate the City with signage, a la Telegraph Road. This is what the Implementation Committee discussed as they reviewed the Ordinance. They discussed the amount of signage, the size of signage, the use of a Sign Consultant, kiosks, etc.

Member Avdoulos said that the north side of Novi Town Center appears to be successful. People gravitate to it. The other side has six to eight vacancies – which might be a visibility problem, or it might be that the Grand River side just isn’t as busy. The Ordinance should allow businesses that are situated in certain areas the biggest bang for their buck, but in a tasteful way. The ground signs can’t be high, but the low signs are covered by landscaping. Even the City of Novi has signage that has become obscure. Signs behind piles of snow cannot be seen. The Ordinance does need an overhaul. The Implementation Committee’s intent was to bring these items up at the Planning Commission meeting. He recommended their message be a negative recommendation on what is provided, and a request for City Council to give the Planning Commission et al direction of reviewing the entire Sign Ordinance. The Committee could include Alan Amolsch, Implementation Committee members, the Ordinance Review Committee members, the ZBA members.

Member Avdoulos said that when the Implementation Committee reviewed garages, the Implementation Committee brought in developers and builders who knew the market and had experience making requests at the ZBA level. He thought it was proper to go this route on this section of the Ordinance. It will take time and energy.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth said that Cindy Uglow and Alan Amolsch of Neighborhood Services have been working on certain issues regarding signs, and they have recommendations to bring forward. Member Avdoulos said he always had questions about the buildings along Grand River. There are signs on the buildings. There are signs in the windows. It gets a little tacky. He wants everyone to prosper, but not to the detriment of good taste.

Member Cassis said there could be a proliferation of gimmicks to promote a business. Historically, this community has tried to limit the proliferation of signs, the heights of signs and the sizes of signs. This was done to the credit of this community, because Novi holds the standard very dear. He once built a Big Boy and had a great big sign. He sold the business and the new people removed the big sign and put in a little sign. It did not affect their business much. Transitionally, the City has evolved into a situation where they might go too far in the opposite direction - especially in the OS area - the City may have gone too far – too stringent. Those tenants should be able to identify themselves.

Member Cassis said there is a lot that can be added or subtracted from the Sign Ordinance. He suggested that the request go back to City Council. He liked Section 2 which says what is permitted. Those were disclaimers whereby the City sets the parameters as to who can avail themselves of the new Ordinance. He thought that could be good for Northern Equities and all those concerned with OST. OST would be the simplest way to approach this. It’s not commercial. It’s not on the highway. It won’t be proliferation. It is for the purpose of identification. OST would be the simple and most approachable way. He also suggested getting a sign expert.

Member Cassis said that the Implementation Committee reviewed Sign Ordinances from different cities. He said that was helpful for gathering ideas. He thought the Ordinance needs to be refined, made better, and made more customer friendly.

Member Lipski agreed with Member Avdoulos and Member Cassis. He thought the clarity and consistency in signage is in the public’s best interest. The ability for one to find a place conveniently is good for everyone. It keeps traffic from backlogging. He thought that bringing on an expert is an important comment. He recommended bringing on members from the business community. This would allow them to voice their concerns as the items are discussed. Member Lipski assumed that someone like Mr. Lutz knew a great deal about the sign industry. He said that Mr. Lutz might be able to shed light on how it’s done on a classy scale for an upscale community. Member Lipski thought that the black and gold signage in Bloomfield Hills allowed people to find what they wanted, and wasn’t as offensive as multi-colored signage. Member Lipski said that the City must find a way that allows people to market their parcels, and for tenants to identify themselves. There must be a way to do it in a cosmetically appealing way. He agreed that the Planning Commission should impress upon the City Council that the Ordinance should be overhauled, and he reiterated the idea of using people in the industry to help.

Chair Kocan made a summary of the possible topics for discussion. Some stipulations may need to be relaxed. Some may need to be refined. Some may need to remove flexibility.

Chair Kocan said the Ordinance states that the multi-tenant signage may not be in the right-of-way – no other stipulation was given. Maybe that is too loose.

Chair Kocan thought that the maximum number of signs should be addressed. Novi Town Center can be access from all four sides signs – how many ground signs would they be allowed. What about outlots? People come from all four directions – should outlots have signage on all four sides?

Chair Kocan said that the language may be vague – not specific enough. The size limit is 32 square feet, but where did that come from? Is it too large? Too small? Should letter size be specified? Should the size be proportionate to the building? Should the setback of the building be considered? Should the speed limit be considered? How is the addition of names to an entry sign going to be addressed? Entry sign versus the ground sign – are they same or different? Visibility of ground signs versus elevated signs. What about two-story buildings?

Section 2815 needs to address the ZBA. It is only addressed to sign variances in general, so the language must be specific throughout the entire Ordinance.

What about temporary signage? What about signage on awnings? Are words on awnings signs? What about freeway signage? Is it appropriate for office tenants but not commercial tenants? What about drive-throughs?

Chair Kocan said these concerns have always been there. She called for a motion.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

Chair Kocan asked that the motion suggest that a Committee be created. Member Pehrson agreed, but felt that the Implementation Committee has reviewed the Ordinance at length and therefore the Implementation Committee should at least be the facilitators of the created Committee.

Member Avdoulos said that the Committee should be made up of the ZBA, Implementation Committee, Ordinance Review Committee, industry professionals, etc. This will create a cohesive Ordinance. Member Avdoulos asked that the motion indicate that the current Ordinance is vague. Member Pehrson and Member Gutman accepted the changes.

Scheduling of Public Hearings for the Planning Commission meeting following the City holiday of February 21, 2005.

Chair Kocan said that there is a holiday on February 21, 2005 and a Planning Commission meeting has been scheduled for February 23, 2005. The Planning Commission bylaws do not allow for Public Hearings to be held within five days after a City-recognized holiday. Chair Kocan said that the importance of the rule is to allow residents accessibility to site plans and correspondence prior to a Public Hearing. She said that the library will be open on both Sunday and Monday prior to the February 23, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Chair Kocan said that most every plan coming forward requires a Public Hearing. She asked Director of Planning Barbara McBeth to comment

Ms. McBeth said that there are a number of Public Hearing items that must be brought forward. There may be some items that could be brought forward that don’t require Public Hearings, but she asked the Planning Commission to consider whether it would be appropriate to bump items forward or whether the plans should be brought forward in order.

Member Avdoulos did not see the problem with Public Hearings being held on February 23, 2005. Some days were already shuffled during the Christmas holidays. The rule was taking into consideration the major holidays. He reiterated that the library will remain open. He said he knew the list of site plans was long and did not think it would be good to push back the Public Hearings.

Member Cassis agreed. He said that calendar is backed up. He felt the public would be apprised of the situation.

Chair Kocan asked whether the public notices could go out earlier, and whether they could state that while the City offices will be closed, the library will be available in the library on both Sunday and Monday.

Moved by Member Cassis, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Member Avdoulos asked whether there were other plans that didn’t require Public Hearings. Ms. McBeth said that most plans require Public Hearings. Maybe one or two items may not need a Public Hearing.

There were no Consent Agenda Removals.

Chair Kocan said that the Budget and the CIP Budget would have to come forward on the first Agenda in February. Andrew Gutman is the Chair of the Budget Committee. Director of Planning Barbara McBeth said that the goals and budget requests have been gathered for the various Committees. A couple of new items were added to this year’s request. The Growth Management Plan, which includes the finalization of the Fiscal Analysis, was part of a previous budget. Therefore, the numbers provided on the preliminary paperwork are not exactly accurate.

Ms. McBeth said that the Administrative Liaison Committee met in the last week. She also asked that if anyone had comments on the paperwork, that it be brought forward now, prior to the actual approval date. Ms. McBeth said that the $2578 pegged for Zoning Map Amendments could be brought under the Planning Department’s budget. That involves the verification of the legal descriptions and map preparations. It is an administrative function. The Planning Commission could ask the Planning Department to shift that line item.

Ms. McBeth said that the conference and workshops money now shows refreshments as a separate line item.

Member Gutman said it was tough to determine how the Planning Commission budget blends with the overall City budget. He wasn’t sure why the 2004-05 numbers dropped from $112,000 to $54,000 to $36,000. He wanted to understand the process better. Was it a wish list that gets chipped away? He now sees that may not be the case. Member Gutman said that because municipalities are tightening their belts at this time, he wondered if the Planning Commission was being sufficiently lean with their requests. For instance, could the Ordinance update be done over a period of time that may express fiscal restraint on the part of the Planning Commission?

Chair Kocan confirmed that last year’s budget numbers did drop in the manner described by Member Gutman. Last year they discussed whether to ask for it all and expect it to be cut, or ask for a minimized budget. For example, for conferences they asked for $14,200 - $11,400 was for three Planning Commission members to go to a national conference, six members to go to a state conference, and three members to go to Citizen Planner training. The final budget approved only the remaining $3,000 for food. Memberships and Dues covers the APA memberships. Briefing and education was slated for $100 per member for local training. Chair Kocan explained that the $81,000 number that appears on the paperwork now is the approved $36,000 and the previously approved $45,000 for the Growth Management Plan.

Chair Kocan said that the $32,596 that has already been expended in the first six months should be reviewed – from which accounts was this money spent? Chair Kocan wondered whether they should send some Planning Commissioners for training before the end of the budget year. She said the consensus has been to ask for all of the money for training.

The CIP Committee will meet at 6:00 p.m. on February 2, 2005. Members Avdoulos, Sprague, Pehrson and Kocan are on the Committee.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Moved by Member Avdoulos:

The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.

MON 01/31/05 IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MEETING 6:00 PM

TUE 02/01/05 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

MON 02/07/05 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 02/09/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 02/21/05 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

Transcribed by Jane L. Schimpf, March 17, 2005 Signature on File

Approved: March 23, 2005 Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date