The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m.

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

Absent: Member Andrew Gutman (excused)

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

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

Chair Kocan asked that "Singh Rezoning" be added under Matters for Discussion.

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 Implementation Committee will meet on May 16, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. The Master Plan and Zoning Committee will meet on May 16, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth told the Planning Commission that the FY2005-06 Budget was approved at the last City Council meeting. The Singh project called Uptown Park went before City Council on May 9, 2005. City Council directed the City Attorney to review the project as a PRO rather than as a Development Agreement, with a maximum density of 201, owner-occupied units only. The time frame is accelerated on this PRO process. Ms. McBeth said that Wellington Ridge went to the ZBA for a use variance and was denied. The ZBA approved the height variance for Miracle Software.

There was no Consent Agenda.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Adorno Piccinini for possible recommendation to City Council for rezoning property in Section 23, south of Grand River Avenue between Novi Road and Meadowbrook Road from NCC, Non-Center Commercial, and RA, Residential Acreage, to GE, Gateway East District. The subject property is approximately 27.380 acres.

Member Cassis asked to be recused, as he was one of the property owners associated with this rezoning.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Sprague:

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth stated that the subject property contains a little more than 27 acres of property and is located on the south side of Grand River, between Novi Road and Meadowbrook Road. The site is primarily vacant of buildings, but does have some commercial uses along the Grand River Avenue frontage. To the east are commercial properties fronting on Grand River - the O’Brien Funeral Home and vacant land. To the north are the Gateway mixed use development and a commercial shopping center. To the west are the Fountain Park Apartments and Marty Feldman Chevrolet. To the south are single family homes in the Meadowbrook Glens subdivision and the Meadowbrook Commons Senior Housing.

The Master Plan for Land Use recommends Town Center Gateway uses for the subject property and the properties to the west, north and east. The Master Plan for Land Use recommends single family residential uses and multiple family residential uses for the property to the south.

The current zoning of the property is a combination of NCC, Non-Center Commercial, along the Grand River Avenue frontage, and R-A, Residential Acreage. The Applicant is requesting GE, Gateway East, for the entire site. The property to the east is currently zoned NCC, Non-Center Commercial, and OS-1, Office Service. To the west, the property is zoned RM-1, Low Density Multiple Family, NCC, Non-Center Commercial, and B-3, General Business. The properties to the south are zoned R-4, One Family Residential, and to the southeast the Meadowbrook Commons property is zoned RM-2, High Density Multiple family. To the north, the property is zoned NCC, Non-Center Commercial, and B-3, General Business.

The woodland map indicates there are medium density woodlands along the southwest portion of the site, and light woodlands on the southeast side. The wetland map indicates that there are wetlands along the southerly portion of the site.

Ms. McBeth said that The Planning Commission is asked to review this request, hold the Public Hearing and forward a recommendation to City Council for its approval or denial. The Planning Review recommended the subject property be rezoned to GE, Gateway East. This zoning is consistent with Section 901a of the Gateway East Ordinance and the Gateway East Qualifying District map. The proposed development of the subject property would be compatible with the approved mixed-use development on the north side of Grand River Avenue, west of Meadowbrook Road, and the expected future Town Center Gateway uses on the property to the east. The rezoning to Gateway East would allow for a mixed-use residential and commercial development that would be compatible with the Fountain Park Apartments and Marty Feldman Chevrolet dealership to the west. A plan of this nature is currently under review by the Plan Review Center.

The Traffic Review indicated that the revised Traffic Impact Study does not adequately support the Applicant’s conclusion on the traffic impacts of the proposed development. The Traffic Study provided conflicting information for the Level of Service at Grand River and Meadowbrook Road. Additionally, the Traffic Review indicated that adequate remedial measures have not been proposed to bring the capacity of the major intersections up to an acceptable level. The Review also recommended traffic signal improvements.

The Civil Engineering Review indicated that the rezoning request will result in a major increase in the water and sanitary sewer demands for these parcels, up to three times higher than as currently zoned, depending on what density and commercial uses may be proposed. The water service is currently available along the Grand River Avenue frontage for this parcel. The increased water demand will likely not have a major impact on the water system. The sanitary sewer is not currently available at this site, but could be extended to serve these properties. The Civil Engineer indicated that there is additional capacity in the sanitary sewer districts to accommodate the development of this property under the proposed GE zoning.

Matthew Quinn represented the Applicant. He introduced Adorno Piccinini and Steve Cross of Adco. Mr. Quinn said that it was a pleasure to represent a rezoning request that matched the Master Plan. He said the property will fit in to the Gateway East zoning district, will complement the Gateway Village project on the north side of the property, the apartments and Marty Feldman to the west, and the proposed Gateway project expected to the east.

Mr. Quinn stated that the Concept Plan for this Gateway Special Development will be brought forward to the Planning Commission soon after City Council’s anticipated approval of this rezoning. This project will be designed so that the condominiums will be to the south, adjacent to the existing homes. Every effort will be made to protect the area woodlands, and even supplement them.

Chair Kocan asked Member Sprague to read the comments into the record:

Chair Kocan opened the floor for comment. No one wished to speak, so Chair Kocan closed the Public Hearing.

Member Wrobel asked what the setback would be for the planned condominiums. Ms. McBeth said that the setbacks could vary based on the fact that a project for this site will be presented as a Special Development Option. She did say that the standard setback was twenty feet. Member Wrobel was concerned about that measurement because it was very small.

Member Wrobel asked where the access to this site would come from. Ms. McBeth said that the proposed plan shows Grand River access, and potentially there could be secondary access points from the adjacent properties.

Member Wrobel asked about the property to the east. Ms. McBeth said that the registration on the aerial photo may be misaligned, which gives the appearance that the property line runs through a building. The actual property lines would be clarified on the site plan submitted for the development.

Member Wrobel asked if anything has been presented to the Planning Department for the property on the southwest corner of Meadowbrook and Grand River. Ms. McBeth said that the Planning Department has seen conceptual plans for that property. This Applicant has been asked to contact that developer so that they can discuss their mutual developments. They could discuss, among other things, cross access between the sites. Ms. McBeth said that particular mixed-use project is not quite ready to move forward at this time.

Member Pehrson asked Steve Dearing, the Traffic Engineer, to comment on the Traffic Study. Mr. Dearing said that the Level of Service for a roadway system is measured by letter grades – "A" is good, "F" is failure. It is recognized in suburban areas that a high Level of Service is difficult to maintain when a development such as this is called for. It is a reasonable goal to shoot for a "D" for the Level of Service. This means that some level of congestion will be experienced during peak periods, but it is generally better during off-peak times and in the evenings.

Mr. Dearing said it is very difficult for a community to build its way out of congestion. "D" is a level that still moves traffic in an expeditious and safe manner and still preserves the character of the community. As the Traffic Engineer for the City, OHM is not recommending a denial of this rezoning, they are just flagging an issue with the Impact Study. They do not believe the study is an accurate or complete description of the impacts of this rezoning. The numeric values reported in the computer printouts, used to calculate the average delay and the Level of Services, were inconsistent with the text of the Study. Rather than an acceptable Level of Service "D," the numbers actually reflect an "E." As OHM analyzed this data, they found that there are easily-accomplished and not-too-terribly-expensive remedial measures that could be implemented that will restore the intersection of Grand River and Meadowbrook to an acceptable Level of Service. OHM wished to have the Traffic Impact Study revised one last time to have the calculations come in line with the text. They would like to have these remedial measures defined so as to safeguard and protect the interests of the community, in terms of the impacts of this development on the roadway system.

Member Pehrson asked whether Mr. Dearing’s comments reflected the future of Grand River, assuming that it would someday be rebuilt as five lanes wide. Mr. Dearing responded that normally, a development’s impact is reviewed based on the existing roadway system. The review is not meant to penalize the developer for other impacts within the community. This development must take care of its own impacts.

Member Pehrson asked how much leverage the City had in light of the fact that Grand River was the purview of the Road Commission of Oakland County. Mr. Dearing responded that the County would likely receive a copy of the Impact Study, and they will note the same problems with the information contained therein. He said that the City is in a better position than the Road Commission to protect the interests of the Community and maintain the integrity of the road network. The Road Commission can really only approve or deny individual driveway locations. The City has latitude in making findings as to whether the inadequacy of the road system or the Applicant’s inability to mitigate their impacts are sufficient enough to withhold the approval of the development until such time that the impacts are remediated.

Member Pehrson asked if Mr. Dearing’s position was that the intent of the rezoning is not unacceptable, but the Applicant must redo their traffic information. Mr. Dearing replied that they believed that it was best that these issues be worked out during the site approval process. City Attorney David Gillam said that it was the rezoning of the property that was under consideration at this meeting, not any specific plan. The Planning Commission must keep in mind that Grand River and Meadowbrook is off-site, and they must be careful in what off-site improvements they require from this or any other Applicant. Mr. Gillam said that traffic is a legitimate issue, but it is more appropriately addressed along with a specific development or proposal. Member Pehrson wanted to ensure that the Applicant understood that the Planning Commission would be reviewing the traffic issue in depth at a later time.

Member Pehrson was in favor of the rezoning, and he was sure that whatever development is proposed will be top-notch. Member Pehrson told Mr. Quinn that the separation between the proposed condos and the existing homeowners is a concern to him. He asked the Applicant to take on the role of "good neighbor" and do what he can to mitigate any adjacency problem there might be. Mr. Quinn replied that Mr. Piccinini has already hosted a gathering for those neighbors; the three residents who attended were in favor of the project once they learned more about it.

Member Sprague thought that even though this was the Public Hearing on just the rezoning, it was still a good idea for the project to be mentioned so the neighbors get some sense of what is planned for the area. He hoped that the developer would provide a good product. Member Sprague asked whether someone could comment on the long term plan for the corner of Grand River and Meadowbrook. Planner Tim Schmitt stated that a recent federal transportation funding package was provided to local municipalities to initiate conceptual engineering on the last phase of the Grand River Avenue widening. The planning is in its infancy at this time. Mr. Schmitt said that Representative Thaddeus McCotter is working to get the money to complete this project. Civil Engineer Ben Croy said that no dates have been bantered about; there are some other road projects that are considered to be higher priority. Member Sprague thought it was important that whatever traffic mitigation impacts need to happen are reflected on any plan that is presented to the Planning Commission.

Member Sprague asked about the wetlands on the south end of the property. Ms. McBeth responded that the plan under review at this time excludes that area of land from development. Ms. McBeth thought that the actual wetlands may be greater than what is shown on the wetland map.

Member Avdoulos said that Grand River is a very large commercial strip from Haggerty to Wixom Road. A lot of work has been accomplished. This particular area is been worked on as a gateway to the City. He thought that the project and activity on the north side, next to the Soccer Zone, has been moving very nicely. The quality is very good. It blends well with the Italian Epicure plaza. Further down is the Library Pub. Activity is coming forward along this strip that lends itself to a smaller area of the City that adds interest, and allows for some pedestrian use. The Town Center was laid out and the desire was for pedestrian activity and interaction to happen there. That one is difficult because in order to have something like that be successful, people have to live there. With Gateway Village across the street, and this property having the same characteristics, this project will lend itself nicely. It will hopefully start working its way west, and start tying in to the vision of Main Street. All of the activity along this stretch is happening the way Member Avdoulos thought it should be happening. It may not be as quick as some people would like it to be, but each step is being completed with care.

Member Avdoulos looked at the density maps, and the density of Meadowbrook Glens is 3.3 units per acre. Meadowbrook Commons is 8.4 units per acre. Fountain Park Apartments is 9.3 units per acre. This property is master planned for 7.3 units per acre. The Gateway District allows for a greater density, but natural features and the layout must be taken into consideration. He noted the concerns of the Planning Commission members regarding the adjacency to Meadowbrook Glens. The Planning Commission has always looked out for the wellbeing of adjacent properties.

Member Avdoulos said he understood that this Applicant cannot be held responsible for the traffic at Meadowbrook and Grand River. He said that the timing of the lights has to be taken into consideration, and that a light is planned for Meadowbrook and Cherry Hill.

Member Avdoulos said that this request meets the intent of the Master Plan. The Engineering Review noted that the utility demand could be as much as three times higher than what is proposed. The demand for water does not appear to have an impact. Mr. Croy said that the Applicant has indicated he would be tying into the sanitary sewer district to the east, and there is capacity available. Member Avdoulos said it would have been nice to see what the plan is that will be proposed for this site, but he understood that this is only a rezoning. He said he was able to support this request.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Chair Kocan clarified that Hummer was first plan to come forward under the Gateway East Ordinance. She confirmed with Ms. McBeth that a mixed-use development must come forward as a Special Development Option (SDO). Chair Kocan said that the SDO language encourages quality residential that is compatible with the mixed-use. The plan should conserve natural features and energy.

Chair Kocan thought that the minimum setback for this project from Meadowbrook Glens is going to be twenty feet. Although buildings are allowed to be fifty feet in the Gateway East District, buildings adjacent to residential are limited to 35 feet (2.5 stories). The GE Ordinance allows for the assemblage of long, large, narrow lots. The City has many of these lots, and any time the City can promote the assemblage of these lots, it is within the best interests of the City.

Chair Kocan said that the revised Traffic Impact Study should come forward with the development as it is proposed. She asked who would be responsible for the costs associated with any off-site traffic improvements. She said that the Traffic Review requested a right-turn overlap phase. Ms. McBeth said that generally the developer is responsible for the cost of the measures they propose to mitigate. Chair Kocan confirmed that it would be the developer’s responsibility to pay for the sanitary hook-up as well.

Chair Kocan said that she read the Gateway Ordinance, and she understood that the next phase is the SDO Concept Plan and the Public Hearing is held at City Council, not at the Planning Commission. Ms. McBeth said she would have to research the Public Hearing statement before she could confirm it. She agreed that the next phase is the submittal of the Conceptual Plan. Planning Commission makes a recommendation to City Council, who ultimately approves or denies the plan. The Preliminary Site Plan is reviewed by City Council.

Chair Kocan said there is a funeral home in close proximity to this project. She asked that the section of this development that is near the funeral home be designed with this adjacency fact in mind.

Chair Kocan said that the Planning Commission has heard that there are feasible alternatives to address the traffic concerns. She said she could also support the motion.

ROLL CALL VOTE ON ZONING MAP AMENDMENT 18.648 MOTION MADE BY MEMBER PEHRSON AND SECONDED BY MEMBER WROBEL:

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Norman Akarakcian for possible recommendation to City Council for rezoning property in Section 10, east of Dixon Road and north of Twelve Mile from R-1, Single Family Residential, to R-4, Single Family Residential. The subject property is 6.54 acres.

Planner Tim Schmitt located the property on a map, and described the area. The subject property is zoned R-1 and master planned for single family residential. Twelve Mile is to the south and the property abuts Dixon Road. On the far side of Dixon Road stands four homes and the Townes at Liberty Park, the Pulte Development that is part of the Sandstone Consent Judgment. To the south is a proposed office building zoned OS-1, and to the east is a proposed office building zoned OS-1. The properties fronting on Twelve Mile are master planned for Office. The properties to the north, west and southwest are zoned R-A and master planned for single family. Further west and further east the areas are master planned for multiple family, the easterly property planned with a PD-1 option.

There are no wetlands on the property. There are no regulated woodlands on the property. Upon a Preliminary Site Plan submittal, the accuracy of the wetland map will be determined, and the number of regulated (non-woodland) trees will be determined.

Mr. Schmitt showed the residential density pattern map. He said that the subject property is master planned for 1.65 density. The easterly Carlton Forest is master planned at 6.6 units per acre. Charneth Fen is master planned for 7.3 units per acre. Society Hill is master planned for 12 units per acre. To the south is Fountainwalk Mall, and if the PD-2 Option is utilized to the south, theoretically residential could be added to that area. To the west, the Sandstone Consent Judgment dictates that the Liberty Park property can be developed with up to 15 dwelling units per acre, with no single acre exceeding 24 units per acre. This language allows for a commercial development which shifts the residential density to the non-commercial land. Mr. Schmitt noted that Pulte is not exercising their right to develop commercial. Mr. Schmitt said that Pulte is developing the land at a far lesser density; the Single Family is at about five units per acre, and the Multiple Family is closer to ten units per acre. This can be attributed to the design and product that was brought forward.

Mr. Schmitt said that the Planning Department does not recommend the approval of this request, as it does not meet the Master Plan standard of 1.65 units per acre. Neither the Traffic Review or Engineering Review found concerns with this rezoning request. Mr. Schmitt said that the subject property was rezoned to R-1 in 2000, in advance of the current developments in this area.

Mr. Schmitt said the Planning Commission can recommend approval or denial of the request of the Applicant, or recommend R-2 or R-3. The change would be to the number of units. R-1 would yield half-acre lots and 120 feet of frontage, which regresses down to R-4 which yields 10,000 square foot lots with eighty feet of frontage. In terms of potential development, the current zoning allows for ten dwelling units, but once it is laid out, the number is closer to six or seven. Under the R-4, the 3.3 density classification, the theoretical number doubles to twenty, but the best conceptual layout allows for only sixteen. This is a range of about ten dwelling units. From a perspective of the City’s buildout analysis, ten units would add between thirty and forty residents, which is less than 1/100 of a percent of the projected buildout population.

Chair Kocan asked about the property to the east. Mr. Schmitt said that there is an intervening office parcel that was rezoned to OS-1 as part of the Carlton Forest consent judgment. Mr. Schmitt noted that there are three properties in the vicinity that will develop according to the terms of a consent judgment. There are some musings taking place regarding some of the stipulations of the easterly consent judgment, but the property will be developed with an office in some way, shape or form.

Mr. Kevin Coles represented Norman and Glenn Akarakcian, the owner of the property. He said that Glenn is a home builder. Mr. Coles said that this property has a transitional nature. He showed the Planning Commission a map outlining the various properties in the area. He said that on page 112 of the Master Plan, the text describes the use of higher Single Family residential densities are provided for properties that are transitionally located to commercial uses. He said this describes the subject property. Unlike the R-A properties to the north, this property actually will abut the Office uses along Twelve Mile. This property will act as the buffer to the R-A properties to the north.

Mr. Coles told the Planning Commission that the Applicant plans to develop the site as a conventional subdivision with fourteen or fifteen sites. The property does not qualify for the Cluster Option. He asked that the Planning Commission adopt the recommendation of the Master Plan and Zoning Committee and send a positive recommendation to City Council. He thanked the City and Planning Commission for their time.

Chair Kocan closed the Public Hearing after determining that no correspondence was received and no one from the audience wished to speak.

Member Sprague said that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee did review this plan. He recalled that the back end of the Stoneridge Office Center can only be designed with parking and landscaping, per the consent judgment. Mr. Schmitt said that the developer is proposing to put a majority of the area under a conservation easement, as they don’t have a design that would work in that area. The location will either be natural or at worst, parking. Modifications to the consent judgment are underway to place the land in a conservation easement.

Member Sprague said that the surrounding parcels are more dense, so it makes some sense to bring this parcel in line, though he reiterated he is not generally in favor of increasing densities. He asked what impact R-4 would have on the northerly properties – would those developers come ask for greater densities too? Mr. Schmitt said his initial thought is that each one of those properties would have to come in with a request that would be reviewed on its own merits. From a practical standpoint, whatever is done with this property would have an impact on the surrounding properties. If those properties do come forward for higher density, a higher density on this parcel would be taken into consideration. Balancing the density in this area becomes the question, and the seclusion of the northerly properties would be considered valuable.

Member Sprague asked how far did those northerly properties extend. Mr. Schmitt said that the land goes north for about one-third of a mile. In terms of depth, it is about 1,000 feet. Director of Planning Barbara McBeth interjected that the display against the podium gave a nice view of the surrounding properties. Mr. Schmitt thought there were seven properties. There could be as much as twenty acres. If the density is doubled, and there are 3.25 people per unit, the map is uncomplicated. Member Sprague thought the more driving feature to the density equation is Liberty Park to the west. Mr. Schmitt said that Liberty Park transitions back into single family as Dixon Road travels north. Member Sprague asked if the Liberty Park lots got larger to the north. Mr. Schmitt said that the Single Family section of Liberty Park is designed with the same size lots – 4,500 square feet and fifty feet wide. Member Sprague said based on that information, this was not a difficult rezoning to support.

Moved by Member Sprague, seconded by Member Lipski:

In the matter of the request of Norman Akarakcian for Zoning Map Amendment 18.649, motion to recommend approval of the rezoning from R-1 to R-4 for the reason that the request is compatible with the zoning of the surrounding properties.

Member Avdoulos said he was on the Master Plan and Zoning Committee, and the request for increased density was higher when the Applicant first came forward. The Committee asked him to come back with a lighter density. He said he was unaware of the 2000 rezoning. He said the Applicant’s representative adequately presented the activities in and around this area, noting the densities around this site. This site would act as a buffer. While increasing density is not what the Master Plan and Zoning Committee encourages, the density map indicates that there is an abundance of R-4 zoning around the lake, and the easterly and westerly properties are very dense. The Master Plan and Zoning Committee believed that this request was appropriate for transitional purposes.

Member Cassis echoed the other comments; he, too, was on the Master Plan and Zoning Committee. He said that he went head to head with this Applicant when he came forward with a Multiple Family request. He said that he encouraged him to consider something less than Multiple Family that would lend itself to the future development of the northerly properties. He said he also deliberated on this property’s 2000 rezoning request. He said that the City must bear some of the responsibility of realigning the density in this area. In the future, Member Cassis felt that the northerly properties should develop as they are master planned, since this property acts as the transitional property. Member Cassis was grudgingly willing to go along with this request because the Applicant’s arguments are sound. Member Cassis hoped that the Applicant would respect whatever natural features are on the site. Member Cassis supported the request.

Member Wrobel sided with the other Planning Commission members. He did not like to increase density, but the request seems to make sense. It is a transitional piece. He supported the request.

Chair Kocan said this was a tough request, because the Master Plan was just approved and this area was not changed at that time. She was concerned about there being a domino effect. She thought there was an additional 45 acres north of this property that is zoned R-A. At 1.65, that is 75 houses. That could increase to 150 houses. When it is looked at in a vacuum, it is not significant. She did appreciate the fact that changes have occurred around this parcel. The City has had to compromise on what they wanted for this area.

Chair Kocan said that it was unfortunate that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee minutes were not provided. She is always concerned when the Planning Department Staff provides a negative recommendation, but there are no negative comments from the Master Plan and Zoning Committee. She does not have any access to the Master Plan and Zoning Committee materials. She didn’t even know what Staff may have told them – was this recommended to them? Was it part of the Master Plan? She hoped that the Committee did have that discussion at their level, and Chair Kocan has not seen these discussions in conjunction with the last four or five requests. She was concerned that there are two completely different recommendations. She heard the comments at this table. She came to this meeting with her feet in the sand. She did not like to increase the density, but she can appreciate the fact that this is a residential to residential zoning request. She reluctantly supported this request, in that it is a small parcel and it makes sense with regard to progressive zoning and transitional property. This is only a recommendation to City Council, and they will make the ultimate decision.

Member Cassis echoed the concern about the minutes. He wished to tell Ms. McBeth that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee should have as much information as possible on a property when a request comes forward. Ms. McBeth said that the Planning Department would do their best to provide the maps. They will ask the Applicant to provide as much information as possible as well. Sometimes the Applicant is in the preliminary stages and they don’t have much to review. There have been incidents where the tape recorder malfunctioned and the minutes were not taped, but the Planning Department will do their best to try to provide those minutes.

Mr. Schmitt said that the lack of minutes was a miscommunication. He thought this review was part of a meeting that wasn’t recorded. This meeting was in fact recorded, but he had a personal family emergency that took him out of town and he was unable to correct this problem.

Chair Kocan called for a break until 9:15 p.m.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Providence Hospital and Medical Centers for Preliminary Site Plan, Storm Water Management Plan and Woodland Permit approvals. The subject property is located in Section 17 at the southwest corner of Grand River Avenue & Beck Road in the OSC, Office Service Commercial District.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Providence Hospital and Medical Center for Planning Commission’s recommendation to City Council for the proposed helistop location. The subject property is located in Section 17 at the southwest corner of Grand River Avenue and Beck Road in the OSC, Office Service Commercial District.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth presented both items 3 and 4 since they were in the same area of the site, but she asked the Planning Commission to make separate motions on the requests. The subject property is currently developed with 240,000 square feet of medical buildings, an 18 hole golf course, and vacant land containing natural woodlands and wetlands. The focus of the two developments being considered by the Planning Commission this evening is the northeast section of the property.

Ms. McBeth located the property on a map and described the area and the zoning surrounding the site. To the north are the 52-1 District Court (OSC) and West Market Square Shopping Center (B-2). To the east are vacant land (B-3), single family homes (R-A), Vision Spa and Salon (OS-1) and Central Park Estates (RM-1). To the south are Single Family Homes and vacant land fronting on Eleven Mile (R-3). To the west are the Utility corridor and vacant land (I-1) fronting on Grand River Avenue.

Ms. McBeth stated that the Master Plan for Land Use recommends Office uses for the north part of the site, and single family residential uses on the south part of the site. To the east the Master Plan recommends office and multiple family residential uses. To the south single family residential uses are recommended. To the west, a combination of single family residential, park, and light industrial uses are recommended.

The woodland map shows light and medium woodlands on the site. The City’s wetland map shows regulated wetlands throughout the site, but predominantly on the south parts of the site.

Ms. McBeth said that part of this consideration this evening does request the approval of the Planning Commission, and the other request is for a recommendation that will go to City Council. The Applicant is proposing to construct new parking lots along the north and east sides of the Providence Park Campus in order to allow the expected construction of new buildings on the south side of the existing buildings. The existing parking lots on the north and east sides of the building will be reconfigured, and new parking lots will be added to the north and east of the existing lots to connect to the approved ring road. No buildings are proposed at this time, but they will be located further south and will be presented as a separate request.

The Planning Commission approved a Preliminary Site Plan for the Providence Park Ring Road on December 8, 2004, with a number of conditions. The approval of the Preliminary Site Plan for the loop road included new road connections to Grand River Avenue and Beck Road, along with the reconfiguration of the existing Grand River entrance. The Plan Review Center has worked with the Applicant to provide the best alignment of the proposed road connections, which will be approved as a part of the Final Site Plan Review for the ring road, currently under review.

For the plans before the Commission this evening, the Planning Department has reviewed and commented only on the dark-shaded areas on plan sheet C-2 for the review of the parking lot reconstruction.

The plan also marks the location of a temporary helistop on the west side of the existing building. Currently the helistop is located by the emergency entrance. The application explains that this is a temporary location for the helistop, which will be in operation for approximately three years, while the hospital construction is underway. The Ordinance allows review and recommendation for helistops by the Planning Commission with approval of the City Council.

The Planning Review indicates that approval of the Preliminary Site Plan for the parking lot reconstruction is recommended, subject to several minor items being addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. The Applicant has been asked to coordinate with the Building Department to insure that adequate barrier free parking spaces are provided throughout the construction process. The geometry of some of the end islands needs to be clarified and corrected. Some corrections are necessary to the exterior lighting plans.

The Planning Review also recommends approval of the plans for the helistop location, subject to additional information being provided at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. The plans were reviewed against the standards provided in Zoning Ordinance Section 2508.6, "Accommodations for Helicopters". The submitted plans demonstrate compliance with those standards. The Planning Commission has been asked to hold this Public Hearing and make a recommendation to City Council on the proposed temporary helistop location.

The Woodland Review recommends approval of the woodland permit subject to additional information being provided at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. There are approximately 1.5 acres of woodlands in the vicinity of the proposed parking lot. The Applicant proposes to remove .72 acres of woodland, most of which will be required to construct the proposed parking lot. The remaining 0.22 acres of woodland will be removed to construct the main entry drive.

The Landscape Review and Traffic Review recommended approval subject to modification of some items at the time of Final Site plan submittal.

The Engineering Review recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan and approval of the Storm Water Management Plan, with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

There is no Façade Review for this application, since no buildings are proposed at this time.

The Fire Department Review indicated that the proposed plan meets requirements for both the parking lot reconstruction and the helistop.

Chair Kocan asked for clarification of the entrances on Grand River. Ms. McBeth responded that one entry is being modified and will likely become right-turn only. There will be two other entries, but these will be approved as part of the ring road plan, not this plan. The Applicant continues to work with the Planning Department on the entrance designs.

Richard Abbott represented Providence Hospital. He said that the future hospital will be located where the parking lots are currently located. Therefore, this is a necessary step – preparing for a parking lot elsewhere on the site. The hospital will ultimately connect to the existing building at the emergency room location, which is where the existing helistop is. That is why the helistop must move. Providence has been working with MDOT and LifeFlight to look at flight lines to come up with a suitable location for the helistop.

Mr. Abbott said that they have reviewed the Planning Department and Consultant reviews and they intend to clean up the outstanding issues at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

Chair Kocan asked Mr. Abbott to show the future layout of the campus. He produced a site plan that showed the locations of the existing buildings, the proposed hospital, the cancer center, the pond and the emergency room. He pointed to the existing location of the helistop. He said there will be an existing two-story walkway to connect the old building to the hospital in that helistop location. Mr. Abbott said that the proposed parking is permanent. He showed the location of the new helistop, which will be in place for about three years, until the hospital is completed, construction is out of the way, and the emergency room is up and operating.

Chair Kocan closed the Public Hearing for both Providence requests after determining that no one from the audience wished to speak.

Member Wrobel asked how often the helistop is used. Mr. Abbott said it is used about once per month. Member Wrobel asked what material is necessary to build a helistop. Mr. Abbott said that what is proposed now is a combination of asphalt and concrete. Member Wrobel asked how the patient would be moved from the helistop to the emergency room. Mr. Abbott responded that the patient could be gurneyed across the parking lot or through the tunnel system, or the ambulance could pick them up from or take them to the helicopter. Member Wrobel asked what the distance was between the helistop and the emergency room. Mr. Abbott said it was 300 feet.

Member Avdoulos said that the plans presented at the meeting helped clarify some of the issues. He was somewhat confused about how the different phases came together, and did not think that the plans provided to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting adequately described the various steps involved in this construction process. Member Avdoulos said that a comment was made in the review letters that some of the items on the plans were approved as part of the entire master plan. Member Avdoulos was concerned about the plans changing as the project got further underway. He thought that in the future more diagrammatic drawings could be submitted so that the Planning Commission can consistently and continuously review this campus as each phase comes forward.

Chair Kocan asked for clarification on one of the comments made by Member Avdoulos. She asked what exactly had the Planning Commission approved. Ms. McBeth said that the actual location of the hospital has not been approved as part of any plan. The first site plan was a roadway and utilities plan and that was all that was approved. There was a plan submitted that showed the future layout, but it was not approved. Chair Kocan expressed concern that with the approvals around the actual hospital being granted first, the Planning Commission’s discretion with respect to the actual hospital site would be limited. Providence is fully aware that the actual layout has not yet been approved.

Member Avdoulos anticipated that the next phase to come forward would be the old parking lot demolition and plans for the hospital. Member Avdoulos said he was fine with the helistop location. He thought that the Applicant provided a good accounting of the woodland trees. Landscape Architect Lance Shipman said that the Applicant has been made aware of the issues, including the additional trees for the trees 36 inches and larger. Mr. Shipman said he continues to wait for the Applicant to tell the City where the replacement trees will be planted.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Chair Kocan was also concerned about the comment in the review letter stating that the master plan had been approved. She said that the Beck Road entrance is going right through a woodland. The Planning Commission approved the connection to Beck Road, but she did not know that this was the design that was approved. That is what the Planning Commission is approving tonight. She wanted to make sure that the Woodland Consultant knew that even though the road went through the woodland didn’t mean he couldn’t comment on it. She did look at it and it is rather insignificant but she did have to question it, without knowing where the buildings are going to go. She had to question why the road didn’t stay where it was. She asked if the road now had to curve through these trees because of the placement of the hospital.

Kim Way of NBBJ, the Providence architect, addressed the Planning Commission. He said that the road is curved for the entrance that goes to the new heart center, because it had to be placed as far north as possible so that a new entry could be designed for the bed addition. They were trying to maximize the use of the space. There would be a drive into the heart center. There would be a drive into the hospital. There are parking requirements that they are trying to place as close to the new addition as possible.

Chair Kocan said that the number of trees being removed is insignificant. She said it was unfortunate that all of the poplars are being saved while some of the nicer trees are being removed. She appreciated the work that Providence has done with the core reserve area. She said that the City and the Applicant compromised on a large portion of the woodland area.

Chair Kocan confirmed that the Applicant would comply with the recommendations. She said there was discussion of skewed intersections and some radius designs that need to be changed. She asked if a detention basin was being replaced. Civil Engineer Ben Croy said that the basins are not being altered as part of this plan. That will be accomplished as part of the ring road site plan, and future phases of the hospital plan. Chair Kocan confirmed that the Stormwater Management Plan was acceptable for this submittal.

Member Cassis noted the number of parking spaces (over 1,000) that will be provided for a 200+ bed hospital. He appreciated the design and Member Avdoulos’ comments.

Member Wrobel asked how many employees would be on any given shift. Mr. Abbott said that the parking was adequate.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Sprague:

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Lipski:

Chair Kocan said that the next motion would be for the recommendation to City Council on the helistop. She said it was important to note that all of the special conditions in the Ordinance have been satisfied. She supported a positive recommendation. She stated that there are still issues with the lighting that will need to be worked out.

Member Avdoulos asked how often the helistop location is checked on a routine basis. Mr. Abbott did not know how often an orientation flight occurs at the site. He said that this proposed location is a more remote location than what is being used now.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Sprague:

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

Moved by Member Sprague, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Chair Kocan confirmed with Director of Planning Barbara McBeth that the Planning Commission did hold a Public Hearing on this rezoning. Ms. McBeth said that it was held in August of 2002. Chair Kocan confirmed that the plan is for Singh to return with a PRO plan for review and approval by City Council. She was concerned that the process that guarantees equity and fairness has been circumvented. She said that the PRO states that the plan would come to the Planning Commission for review first. She wanted to be sure that the process for this project was followed - the more eyes that look at the plan, the better. She hoped that the City Administration and City Attorney follow the process.

Ms. McBeth said that City Administration asked the City Attorney to prepare a letter outlining the exact process that will be followed, and how the review will be accomplished within a reduced timeframe. City Attorney David Gillam concurred, stating that his colleague, Tom Schultz, was working on the letter that would lay out the process, which will include review of the PRO by the Planning Commission. The Applicant has been advised that the plan would come back before the Planning Commission. He believed that the plan is on a fast track, and if the Planning Commission falls short on time, it would be incumbent upon them to inform City Council of this circumstance.

Member Avdoulos mentioned that prior to this meeting that the Planning Commission held a roundtable and met with the developers to discuss tax base alternatives. He did not think that there was a proper ending to the meeting, i.e., it was not discussed how the end product will be put together and put to use.

Member Cassis added that he thought the developer comments were on issues not under the purview of the Planning Commission. He thought the developers should take those concerns to City Council, as they are the legislative body. The Planning Commission sought ideas from them on how to increase the tax base. Other than some addressing of the height situation, Member Cassis did not hear much else that lent itself to the tax base alternatives discussion as planned. Member Cassis did not think the developers contributed to the dialogue as much as he would have liked.

Chair Kocan said that the City needs specifics from the developers. Developers need to specify how high they would like to see the height restriction raised. They need to specify how many floors they think should be allowed. Chair Kocan agreed that some of the statements were indeed in reference to policies, and while the Planning Commission could comment, they could not offer assistance. Chair Kocan also thought that the report to City Council was going to come from the Planning Department and Staff, and that the Planning Commission was only one inputting source. Ms. McBeth said this should be sorted through a bit more. The minutes would be provided to the City Council for their review. The Planning Department was planning on summarizing the findings and providing a background document on the information available. This would also include the information that comes out of the next meeting.

Ms. McBeth said that the developers could be invited back to another meeting. This would allow more time for a question-answer session. Chair Kocan said the questions becomes, should it be a Planning Commission Agenda item, or should it be a roundtable discussion special meeting? She was not certain whether the Planning Commission members wanted to meet again at 6:00 p.m.

Member Lipski suggested that the Planning Commission try to extrapolate the information, especially the information from the Oakland County speaker. She had said that increasing the tax base is done through the attraction of large commercial business owners and tenants. What the developers stated at the meeting was their interest in finding methods of facilitating development to increase the speed and likelihood of those higher taxpayers. Member Lipski thought their message was very consistent – and the presentation was also consistent with increasing the tax base. He thought all of the comments were about increasing the tax base by facilitating development. Whether the City wants to adopt their suggestions is up to the City and City Council. Every comment they made was developer-serving and would increase the tax base. He would have let the developers know right off the cuff that it is somewhat comical that they are looking for tax abatements in Novi, and they lose credibility by asking that. This is not a town that needs to provide that.

Member Cassis thought this was a very important topic and he did not know how this could be done in such a short time. He did think that the meeting was exploratory and beneficial. He agreed with Member Lipski that the issue should be discussed again so that the Planning Commission can make their recommendation to City Council. Member Cassis would prefer another special meeting.

Member Pehrson agreed. He did not think there was a time crunch. The process of dealing with the City seemed to be the problem brought forward by the developers. If the Planning Commission brings the developers back again to ask them what specific things – building and zoning – can be done, then the Planning Commission can ultimately provide something to City Council. It is not about raising building heights and number of stories. Maybe, after the developers’ comments have been heard, the Planning Commission could synthesize the idea of raising the building heights in a given area, such that the City can further delineate and underscore what that might look like, and the public would know what it looked like as well.

Member Avdoulos thought that the meeting generated many thoughts and ideas. It wouldn’t be good just to drop the ball now; this is an opportunity to work at something that is going to create a benefit for the City. The interesting thing is all of the comments from the developers and the Oakland County speaker (Maureen Krauss) were voluminous and the Planning Commission did not have time to pull the information apart to determine what the crux was. As Member Pehrson suggested, after hearing the comments, maybe the City can develop a zone that allows for these high-profile businesses to come into the City in four or five story buildings. He said there is a lot to do, on the parts of Planning Commission, City Council and City Administration. Member Avdoulos liked the roundtable concept because it was somewhat informal, and there could be a timeframe attached to it.

Member Cassis said that this roundtable re-asserts that the Planning Commission plays a role in this City. Since this issue involves zoning and master planning, it should be handled by the Planning Commission. Much has been said about the loss of jobs in Michigan, and Member Cassis said that perhaps the Planning Commission’s consideration of these things may help to improve the job outlook for Novi.

After a brief discussion, the Planning Commission determined that June 14 or June 15 would be acceptable for a second roundtable.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Moved by Member Pehrson,

The meeting adjourned at 10:27 p.m.

MON 05/16/05 IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MEETING 6:00 PM

MON 05/16/05 MASTER PLAN AND ZONING COMMITTEE 7:00 PM

TUE 05/17/05 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE 6:00 PM

MON 05/23/05 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 05/24/05 STORM WATER COMMITTEE 6:00 PM

WED 05/25/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 05/30/05 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

MON 06/06/05 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 06/07/05 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

WED 06/08/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

TUE 06/07/05 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

WED 06/08/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 06/13/05 CITY COUNCIL INTERVIEWS 7:00 PM

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

Approved: May 25, 2005 Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date