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

Absent: Members Victor Cassis (excused), Andrew Gutman (excused)

Also Present: Barbara McBeth, Director of Planning; Tim Schmitt, Planner; Mark Spencer, Planner; Darcy Schmitt, Planner; Lance Shipman, Landscape Architect; Ben Croy, Civil Engineer; David Gillam, City Attorney

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

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth stated that the Weiss Rezoning and the Weiss PRO was noticed for a Public Hearing, but at the Applicant’s request they were removed from the Agenda. She said that the correspondence already received would be provided to the Planning Commission once the items are back on the Agenda. She said that it was a courtesy notice in the newspaper, and that it was likely the Planning Department would run the notice again because of the volume of interested parties.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Sprague:

No one from the audience wished to speak.

There was no Correspondence to share.

Chair Kocan said that the CIP and Administrative Liaison Committee met and the outcome of the meeting would be discussed later in the evening.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth told the Planning Commission that Mark Spencer began his employment with the City in January, and at that time she asked him to collect information on commercial land uses in the City of Novi. The information contained in Mr. Spencer’s presentation describes Novi shopping centers individually and in aggregate form, and contrasts this information against County and regional data. Mr. Spencer also provided vacancy rate information collected by the City’s Assessing Department. He drew from the Master Plan and from the Citizen Perception Survey completed in 2002. This report is a valuable planning tool and supplements the Master Plan.

Planner Mark Spencer provided a quick recap of his him memo regarding the basic spatial and social aspects of retail businesses and commercial centers in the City. He said that the commercial sector is important to land use planning of most communities. Retail centers generate tax revenue for the local community, provide jobs, serve the public by providing goods and services and can bring recognition and name/place identity to the host community by just being the place that people want to go.

Mr. Spencer discussed the spatial aspect of commercial uses in the City. He said that the City of Novi Master Plan Future Land Use map depicts a total of 1,132 acres for commercial purposes. This is a substantial proportion. It represents 6% of the total of 20,081 acres within the City limits. Land planned for commercial purposes includes land designated as local commercial, community commercial, regional commercial, Town Center, Gateway, PD-2, and Downtown West. Commercial use of land has increasingly consumed more land in the City. SEMCOG data shows commercial land use growing from 711 acres in 1990 to 814 acres in 2000. This represents an increase of 14.5%. In recent use the amount of land use commercial uses continues to grow. The Westmarket Square and Fountainwalk recently added 108 acres to the commercial area of the City.

A higher percentage of land in the City is used for commercial purposes than what is used in Oakland County or the SEMCOG region as a whole. SEMCOG data indicates that 4.1% of the City’s land was occupied by commercial uses. This compares to 2.8% of all of Oakland County and 2.0% for all of the SEMCOG region. This demonstrates that commercial uses in Novi serve a market area larger than just the City.

Mr. Spencer said that data provided by the City’s Planning and Assessing departments show that commercial centers represent 45% of the total land area used for commercial uses. The City commercial centers range in land area from 1.5 to 167 acres. The floor spaces range from 6,000 to 1.6 million square feet.

Currently commercial centers occupy 530 acres in the City, with another 90 acres in the construction or planning process. When the latter is completed 620 acres, or 3.1% of the land in the City will be used for commercial centers. They supply 4.9 million square feet of retail floor space. This will also increase to 5.6 million square feet upon completion of the projects in the pipeline.

Commercial centers can be categorized into four subgroups based on their size and the market that they serve. Convenience or local business centers serve a neighborhood market area. Minor and intermediate comparison or community business centers serve a community sized area. A major comparison or regional business centers serve a regional area. Regional business centers account for two-thirds of the land area and floor area of all commercial centers in the City. This is another indication of the regional market area served by the Novi commercial centers.

Mr. Spencer said that a substantial portion of the people employed in the City of Novi work in the retail sector. In 2000 SEMCOG indicated that of the 34,984 persons employed in the City, 11,339 were employed in the retail sector. This represents 32.4% of the workforce. This is second to services at 34%, but far exceeding the third largest sector, which is manufacturing, which is 18%. This compares to Oakland County at 16.6% of its workers in the retail sector, and SEMCOG region percentage of 17.6. This data support the premise that Novi retail businesses serve a market area larger than the City. The number of people employed in the retail sector has also continued to grow. SEMCOG data indicate that the retail work force in Novi grew by 43.8% from 1990 to 2000.

Vacancy rates in the City’s commercial centers are relatively low when compared to national rates. According to the City of Novi Assessing Department, in January of 2005, commercial centers in Novi had a vacancy rate of 7.8%. This equates to over 300,000 square feet of available space.

Another indication of the importance of commercial land use in the City is the taxable value for commercial property. Commercial properties represent 26% of the total taxable value of real property in the City. The taxable value in 2004 for commercial properties was $703,000,000.00, which generated over $97,000,000.00 in revenue for the City.

A 2002 Citizen Survey included positive responses toward commercial uses in the City, as well as statements indicating that there is adequate or more than enough retail development in the City. 70% of the respondents said that shopping facilities were better than they were when they first moved to Novi, and 57% said that the retail shopping character was better. A public opinion survey conducted in 2003 as part of the Master Plan update process found that only 10% of the respondents thought that the City had enough shopping.

In summary, commercial land uses occupy a large portion of the City’s land, provide many jobs for the regions, provide goods and services to the City and the region, and provide a substantial portion of the City’s tax base. Commercial uses in the City serve a regional market area and have grown substantially over the last several years. Commercial centers are a major type of commercial land use in the City, representing almost one-half of the commercial shopping and services provided in the Community. Mr. Spencer concluded his presentation, and thanked the City Assessor’s Department for helping him with this project, as well as some of the other City Staff members who assisted him.

Member Avdoulos said that a lot of this information helps validate decisions that were made during the Master Plan update. He said there is influx of people wanting to do residential development, but when one looks at what is located where, and what kind of taxes it brings, and how it helps the City, it is really nice to have information like this that is beyond an overall statement. It is relevant. There is actual data. The City does have surveys. This pulled together all the information into a nice package that is actually pretty easy to go through. It was very helpful. He appreciated the work that went into the presentation. Member Avdoulos was always interested in lists and numbers, and he liked having this study with all the shopping areas and their square footages, what the spaces are, and the vacancies. A lot of time a development will come forward that wants to be close to a certain area, and within that area people know what’s vacant and what’s not. Sometimes they make their judgments or opinions based on that, because they know that another shopping center already has three vacancies so another shopping center is not needed where one is proposed. He said it was a good presentation to hold on to.

Member Wrobel asked about the list of shopping centers and asked where Meadowbrook and Ten Mile shopping center is on the list. Mr. Spencer said that it is referred to on the list as Caine Properties.

There was no Consent Agenda.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Greg Oleshansky for Preliminary Site Plan, Woodland Permit and Storm Water Management Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 4, in Beck North Corporate Park located on Hudson Drive in the I-1, Light Industrial District. The project proposes a 14,095 sq. ft., one-story building for office and warehouse use.

Planner Darcy Schmitt located the property on an aerial map. She said this project is located in phase one of Beck North Corporate Park on lot 27. It is on the west side of Hudson Drive. North of the site is the beginning of Beck North Phase II, KM Investments is to the south, Hudson Commerce Center is located to the east across Hudson Drive, and the City of the Wixom is located to the west.

The property is zoned I-1, light industrial, as are the surrounding properties. The site is master planned for light industrial, as are the surrounding properties. The property does have a slight indication of wetlands along the west border of the property line. The Wetland Consultant reviewed the plan and determined that there would be no need for a Wetland Permit. The property does contain several acres of woodlands, and will need approval of a Woodland Permit.

The proposed site plan offers one primary access point off of Hudson Drive. It also has two secondary access points – one is a stub to the north that will connect to a future development in Phase II of Beck North. The other is an access connecting to KM Investments to the south.

The Planning Review indicates that the plan meets Ordinance requirements, with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

The Woodland Review indicates that the plan meets Ordinance requirements.

The Wetland Review indicates that there is no need for a Wetland Permit, and the Applicant has shown sufficient evidence that there will be no major effect to the wetland to the far west of the property.

The Landscape Review indicates that the project meets Ordinance requirements, with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

The Traffic Review indicates that the plan does not meet Ordinance requirement without the Planning Commission’s approval of an Opposite Side Driveway Spacing Waiver of 17 feet for the required 200 feet. With this Planning Commission Waiver, the Planning Department approves of the plan, with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

The Engineering Review indicates the site plan meets Ordinance requirements with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

The Façade Review and the Fire Department Review both indicate that the plan meets requirements. Ms. Schmitt showed the Planning Commission the façade board.

Chair Kocan asked if the property directly west of the site was part of the lot. Ms. Schmitt said no. Chair Kocan asked if that was a conservation area for Beck North Corporate Park. Ms. Schmitt said that she thought it was; she would have to check for sure. Chair Kocan said that some of the trees are listed as being on that property, but they are being preserved. She said it really wasn’t part of this site. Ms. Schmitt said that was correct, and it was something that she just noticed before she came to the meeting. She was sure it was some kind of easement, but it should be on the plan. She said she could look into that and find out for sure.

Greg Oleshansky represented the Applicant. He said that there is a preservation easement that covers the triangular area of which Chair Kocan spoke. It is about a five or six acre easement. Ms. Schmitt agreed, stating that it part of a reserved area.

No one from the audience wished to speak; Chair Kocan asked Member Sprague to read the correspondence into the record.

Andrew Pelto, 3100 Trilogy Road, Milford: Approved of the site plan.

Oleg Amcheslavsky, 26105 Lanny’s Road, Novi: Approved of the site plan.

Chair Kocan closed the Public Hearing.

Member Pehrson asked if the cross access to the north and south would be gated. Mr. Oleshansky said they would be open access.

Member Pehrson asked about the Wetland Consultant’s statement about the parking area being placed on the natural features setback area. The area will be impacted during construction. He asked what the degree of impact would be. Ms. Schmitt said that this will be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. It is not a great amount of impact.

Member Pehrson asked about the Woodland Consultant statement complimenting the Applicant for using Dutch elm disease-resistant trees to maintain the character of the canopy. He said that was a positive attribute to the plan and Member Pehrson thanked him.

Member Pehrson had no objection to the 17-foot waiver and did not think anything could be changed on the design to alleviate that problem. He would support a positive motion.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Member Avdoulos said the spacing waiver is shy by 17 feet, but when the plan is reviewed, it is obvious that the driveway is located as far away as it can be, to maintain itself within the property lines and providing the appropriate turning radius. He said that the Planning Commission has had discussions in the past about these spacing waivers. This one doesn’t have any alternatives.

Member Avdoulos said the Planning Commission always appreciates the response letters from the Applicants, indicating their cooperation with the review letters, and that they will do their best to make a good project for the particular project they are looking at. It helps the Planning Commission determine which issues are going to be critical or not. Also, when an Applicant receives a compliment from one of the reviewing disciplines, that is always taken in a positive light. He supported the motion.

Member Sprague said it was good to see clean projects come forward. He said it seems like the road is placed where it needs to be, but driveway spacing in industrial parks is a continual frustration for the Planning Commission because the roads don’t seem to meet Ordinance – the way the driveways have to be spaced. He thought that every building in this park had a waiver. He thought that the City could do a better job with that.

Chair Kocan said she spoke with Staff prior to the meeting about the Opposite Side Driveway Spacing Waiver. There are two schools of thought – Birchler Arroyo has always applied the major road spacing waivers within industrial parks, and that may not necessarily be what’s required for an industrial park. She will be asking Staff to make a presentation to the Planning Commission so that they know which Ordinances they should be enforcing. Right now they will continue reviewing as they have been. She said that if the language is not specific in the Ordinance, then maybe the Implementation Committee should look at it, or the Planning Department should get it put in the Design and Construction Standards, that what applies to a 60 mph road may not be applicable on a 25-30 mph road.

Chair Kocan said that she can support the waiver because there is not going to be interlocking traffic problems. Most of the traffic will go south, just as the traffic from the building to the south is also going to go south when they exit exist.

ROLL CALL VOTE ON OLESHANSKY INDUSTRIAL BUILDING, SP04-44A, PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN MOTION MADE BY MEMBER PEHRSON AND SECONDED BY MEMBER WROBEL:

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

ROLL CALL VOTE ON OLESHANSKY INDUSTRIAL BUILDING, SP04-44A, WOODLAND PERMIT MOTION MADE BY MEMBER PEHRSON AND SECONDED BY MEMBER WROBEL:

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

ROLL CALL VOTE ON OLESHANSKY INDUSTRIAL BUILDING, SP04-44A, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM MOTION MADE BY MEMBER PEHRSON AND SECONDED BY MEMBER WROBEL:

Consideration of the request of Eric Mondrush of Toll Brothers Inc., for Preliminary Site Plan and Storm Water Management Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 19, north of Ten Mile, between Wixom and Napier roads in the R-A, Residential Acreage District, subject to a Residential Unit Development Agreement. The subject property is 10.047 acres.

Planner Tim Schmitt told the Planning Commission that this is the last phase of Island Lake, given the amount of land that they currently own. He reminded the Planning Commission that this is the parcel that came before them as a rezoning request. Toll Brothers then bought the land and asked that it be included into the RUD. City Council heard that request on September 22, 2004 and approved it unanimously. The concept was approved on October 18, 2004 and recently, at the February 7, 2005 meeting, the language was finally approved for the fifth amendment to the RUD. It is currently at Oakland Country being recorded.

Mr. Schmitt located the property on an aerial map. Island lake Phase 4B-1 is located directly to the west. To the east is Oak Pointe Church, on which the Planning Commission recently heard an update. The subject property is zoned R-A, residential acreage, as are the properties to the north, east and west. To the south is R-1, single family residential, which is Legacy Parc.

The subject property is master planned for single family residential uses. The surrounding areas are also master planned for single family, including what was once known as Links of Novi.

There are no designated wetlands or regulated woodlands. Therefore, no Public Hearing is required for this plan. The concept proposed by Toll Brothers is a 22-lot subdivision, consistent with the concepts that were originally brought forward with the rezoning request, and with the RUD amendment request. They are preserving a large park area to at the southern tip of the cul-de-sac, consistent with what was approved with Phase 4B-1, and also with Oak Pointe’s open space proposal on their southern tip.

The reviews indicated only minor items to be addressed. The only waiver requested is for the street tree requirement, so as to maintain consistency throughout the Island Lake development. Under the jurisdiction of the Road Commission of Oakland County, the Planning Commission has been asked to waive the street trees. This 200 feet of development will stick out if there are street trees.

The Wetland Review indicated that there is a swale on the property. It is not designated as a wetland. ECT, the consultant, asked that Planning Department look into this and determine that it will not have an effect on the stormwater runoff from this property to the adjacent properties. Civil Engineer Ben Croy looked at the Stormwater Management Plan and he recommends its approval. The modification of that swale will not have a substantial impact.

The Planning Review indicated minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. Mr. Schmitt showed a current layout of Island Lake. There are 294 attached cluster homes around the lake, off the lake and in the woods. There are 433 detached homes counting this proposal. There are 46 one acre lots along the lake. This will be the final unit mix, unless Toll Brothers comes back with additional land.

The Traffic Review and the Landscape Review indicated minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

Chair Kocan asked that the minutes reflect that Member Lipski arrived at this time.

Jason Rickard from Toll Brothers addressed the Planning Commission. He said the only waiver they are requesting is for the street trees. He said that Toll Brothers are willing to address all of the other minor comments. He said that the drainage swale will continue to be investigated to ensure that everything is okay.

Member Sprague asked if the total of 733 units is the final count for Island Lake – he thought the number would be higher. Mr. Schmitt said that they were approved for 884 units, including this property. Site Planning and layout dictates what the actual number ended up becoming.

Moved by Member Sprague, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Chair Kocan asked about a comment in the November 8, 2004 OHM letter regarding the sidewalk connections. The letter suggested sidewalk connections from the Langley Court cul-de-sac to the safety path on Ten Mile. She thought there was a berm there. She did not see any discussion on that comment. Mr. Schmitt responded that the City is hoping that both the right-of-way berm along Ten Mile (between Phase 5C and Oak Pointe Church and 4B-2) can be consistently applied combined into one continuous berm. Additionally, the pedestrian network plan for Island Lake has a connection out to Ten Mile and the safety path, about 200-250 feet to the west. From the Planning Department’s perspective, there isn’t much desire to connect the sidewalk from the cul-de-sac, through the berm, and out to Ten Mile, when there is one just to the west. Mr. Rickard agreed with Mr. Schmitt’s comments. He also said he’s in the process of setting up the meeting with the City and the church to discuss the berm.

Member Pehrson, the chair of the CIP Committee, addressed the Planning Commission. He said that the CIP Committee met with the Administrative Liaison Committee to discuss seven different CIP topics.

The Committees discussed the road projects. They agreed that the roads should move forward from year to year, so that people know that their job has not been dropped from the list. The Nine Mile project (between Napier and Beck) should be a priority because it is a school bus road. There are drainage issues regarding the job. The Leverage Project includes funds from other sources. One aspect of it includes Novi Road between Grand River and Ten Mile.

The Committees also discussed the streets and the PASER program. Each street is given a ranking from 1-10, which determines in which order the project would move forward. The Committees discussed that the volume of traffic on each of those roads should also be considered. Some are pedestrian roads and some are industrial roads – and something like Nine Mile should be looked at more favorably than Trans-X Drive.

Member Pehrson said that the Beck Road improvements were discussed. A boulevard has been put in from Six Mile to M-14. It may be the City’s intention to do this same concept from the City border to Grand River. This could alleviate traffic light issues. It is a big project and will involve more than just City funds.

Member Pehrson said that the Committees considered sidewalks near schools as the high priority sidewalks.

The Committees had no comments on the sanitary sewers.

The Committees noticed that there has been improvement to the water pressure in the northwest quadrant of the City, based on the crossover at I-96, there may still be a need for a tank of some sort on or near the Providence Park site. This is being discussed with them at this time. They will also be talking about cost sharing. The City shouldn’t bear the burden of that cost, if the majority of the need comes from Providence. It was noted that last year was the first time the City had a water distribution Master Plan.

The Committees had concern about stormwater. The CIP is looking at dredging at some of the lakes, and consideration must also be given to inlets and outlets. This will hopefully help minimize erosion.

The Parks and Recreation information was reviewed. Chair Kocan discussed the spectator netting, which is scheduled for 2010-2011. It is noted in the summary for its importance, and it is a safety measure. The Committees questioned why it didn’t get moved into this year’s priority.

The Other Projects category concerns the DPW, Fire, Police requests. The Committees had no not comment.

In general, Member Pehrson said that there’s approximately $300,000 of discretionary funds in 2004. The projects that were shown as projects having outside funding can be moved. Some Police items will be funded because of drug forfeiture money. There can also be some reprogramming of money from department to department or project to project if the drug money covers the Police requests in their entirety.

Member Pehrson said that each Department informs the City Manager of their priorities. Committees often give the Departments their direction. Member Pehrson said that the CIP would be meeting the next day to discuss and rank the items on the budget. That group determines priority ranking based on City goals, the amount of money available, and what might actually be the true needs of the City. There will be a Public Hearing at the next Planning Commission meeting (March 9, 2005), so that the public has the opportunity to give their comments. The recommendations will be forwarded to the City Manager, and based on available funds, he does what he thinks is best for the City. He presents this information to City Council. They review the information during their budget approval process.

Chair Kocan stated that tomorrow’s CIP meeting is the Planning Commission-City Council CIP meeting. She also noted that the CIP is a working document. From that list, the City Manager makes his recommendations for budget line items. Just because something is slated for 2005-06 on the CIP budget, it is not guaranteed to be put in the City’s 2005-06 budget.

Chair Kocan asked if the Planning Commission had any comments about the items on the CIP project list.

Member Wrobel said that Committee did a very good job. He supported their plan.

Chair Kocan said that Finance Director Kathy Smith-Roy has worked very hard on this plan.

Member Avdoulos thanked Member Pehrson for the list.

Moved by Member Sprague, seconded by Member Avdoulos:

There were no Consent Agenda Removals.

There were no Matters for Discussion.

There were no Supplemental Issues.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Moved by Member Lipski, seconded by Member Sprague:

Motion carried 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.

MON 02/28/05 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 03/01/05 MASTER PLAN AND ZONING COMMITTEE 7:00 PM

TUE 03/01/05 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

MON 03/07/05 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 03/09/05 PLANNING COMMISSION 7:30 PM

MON 03/14/05 IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MEETING 6:00 PM

MON 03/21/05 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 03/23/05 PLANNING COMMISSION 7:30 PM

FRI 03/25/05 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

MON 04/04/05 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 04/05/05 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

WED 04/13/05 PLANNING COMMISSION 7:30 PM

MON 04/18/05 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 04/27/05 PLANNING COMMISSION 7:30 PM

Transcribed by Jane L. Schimpf, March 4, 2005 Signature on File

Approved: March 9, 2005 Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date