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

Present: Members Brian Burke, Victor Cassis, David Lipski (7:54 p.m.), Michael Lynch, Michael Meyer, Mark Pehrson, Wayne Wrobel

Absent: Members John Avdoulos (excused), Andrew Gutman (excused)

Also Present: Barbara McBeth, Director of Planning; Tim Schmitt, Planner; Mark Spencer, Planner; David Beschke, Landscape Architect; Brian Coburn, Engineer; John Freeland, Wetland Consultant; Doris Hill and Larry DeBrincat, Woodland Consultants; David Gillam, City Attorney

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

Chair Cassis added a Section 9 Façade Waiver request onto Item 4 of the Public Hearings.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

No one from the audience wished to speak.

There was no Correspondence to share.

There were no Committee Reports.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth told the Planning Commission about items that were recently heard at City Council. The second reading of the Sign Ordinance amendments was approved. The second reading of the updated Retail Parking Standards was approved. The Michigan Planning Conference deadline is approaching, so Ms. McBeth asked the Planning Commission members to let her know of their intentions to attend. Mr. Burke will be attending all of the Citizen Planner courses.

Consideration of the request of Marygrove Awning for a Section 9 Façade Waiver approval. The subject property is located in Section 23, south of Grand River Avenue, east of Novi Road, in the TC-1, Town Center -1 District. The Applicant is proposing additional canvas awnings on the Andiamo Restaurant portion of the Main Street East building.

Consideration of the request of Superior Diversified Services for a one-year Preliminary Site Plan extension. The property is located in Section 22 on the south side of Grand River Avenue, west of Novi Road in the TC-1, Town Center-1 District. The site is adjacent to the City Center Plaza and the parcels will be combined to complete the third phase of the plaza. The Applicant is proposing to renovate an existing 3,600 sq. ft. building and add an additional 2,496 square feet to the existing structure.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Group 3, Inc., for Preliminary Site Plan, Stormwater Management Plan, Woodland Permit, and Wetland Permit approval. The subject property is located in Section 16, south of Grand River Avenue east of Beck Road, in the I-1, Light Industrial District. The subject property is 10.73 acres and the Applicant is proposing four medical office buildings totaling 83,314 square feet.

Planner Tim Schmitt described the project. This property is adjacent to Heyn Drive, a private drive to the east. Beck Road is to the west. Central Park Estates and Remax 100 are to the south. Aladdin Heating and Cooling is adjacent to the property to the west. The property is zoned I-1, Light Industrial, as are the properties to the west and east. To the south is a mix of I-1 and OS-1, with RM-1 further south. To the north is OST. Further west is R-A and B-3. The properties are master planned for Office, a change in the most recent Master Plan for Land Use update. The Applicant is not proposing a zoning change to Office, though their plan for the land is an office use.

The property contains a lot of wetlands that continue onto the Remax and Central Park sites. Part of the wetland complex even extends into Asbury Park. There are woodlands on the southerly portion of the site and throughout the site.

The building material proposed is brick. Mr. Schmitt showed the façade material board. There are four buildings being proposed, with a mix of medical and general office uses – roughly a 50-50 split. Each of the buildings is fairly similar to the others.

The Planning Review recommends approval subject to some minor items being addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. There are a couple of locations where the setbacks are not met. The Applicant has responded that they will meet the requirement. Therefore, a ZBA variance should not be necessary.

The Applicant is asked to save the black walnut tree between buildings 2 and 3. It is a 44" dbh tree. A sketch was provided that showed a feasible way with which the Applicant can save the tree. They Applicant has responded that they are not interested in preserving the tree.

The Wetland Review indicated minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. There is a minor encroachment in a stormwater outfall into the overall wetland complex.

The Landscape Review indicated there are two items for the Planning Commission to discuss. The parking lot perimeter tree requirement, specifically around the wetland and the detention basin, cannot be met. That requirement is one tree for every 35 lineal feet. A 25-foot buffer around the upper rim of the detention basin cannot be met without encroaching the wetlands. The Planning Commission recommends that the Planning Commission grant these waivers.

The Traffic Review and Engineering Review both indicate the need for a specific driveway spacing waiver. 185 feet is proposed between the two drives. Given a 50 mph speed limit on Grand River, the requirement is 300 feet is required. The Planning Commission supports the waiver because the drive has been placed in a good position. It has less of an impact on properties that will develop in the future.

The Fire Department Review indicated minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

The Planning Commission is asked to weigh in on a Section 9 Façade Waiver request. The Applicant is proposing up to 11% of split-faced block on the buildings. It is an accent piece but 0% is permitted in Region 1 (buildings within 500 feet of a major thoroughfare). The Façade Consultant did not recommend either way on this waiver request; it is up to the Planning Commission. This is different than the cast stone waivers that have been coming through, because split-faced block is discussed explicitly in the Ordinance.

The Woodland Review indicates that approval is recommended, but the Applicant is still encouraged to save the black walnut tree. There is another issue that the Planning Commission should know about. There is a woodland violation on southern portion of this site. Woodland Consultant Doris Hill can describe this violation if the Planning Commission desires. The subject development is only on the north end of this site. The violation should be discussed. No resolution has been finalized. A number of alternatives have been offered to the Applicant. They can provide a 1:1 replacement, which adds up to a very large amount of trees. There is an opportunity to place a Conservation Easement on a section of property that abuts residential, along with some replacement trees. This could be agreed to by the Woodland Consultant. The Applicant’s response letter indicates that they are willing to work with the City to find a solution. They have not provided a definitive solution. It is an ongoing situation.

There could also be a wetland violation in the area. Dr. John Freeland, the Wetland Consultant, was present at the meeting and could discuss this potential violation and the Wetland Permit if the Planning Commission so desired.

Mr. Larry Curran from Powell and Associates represented Group 3, Inc. He said he was working with the adjacent property owner so that Heyn Drive will become a public road. Therefore, these buildings will be set back as if it were a public road. The black walnut tree is not between the buildings but under one of the buildings. To do what the previous planner, Jason Myers, had suggested, the Applicant would have to make several concessions. First, this project was put together and represents three owners and five parcels of land. Each building sits on its own parcel. These parcels are not intended to be placed in one large parcel under one ownership. If the building was moved to save the tree, it would not be on its parcel. The I-1 zoning requires a front yard setback of forty feet, with an additional ten to twenty foot of greenspace. There is fifty to sixty feet of greenery in front of one of the buildings and adjacent to Heyn Drive. Mr. Myers suggested that the Applicant place a sidewalk next to the driveway. The Applicant prefers the open space feel upon arrival. To save one walnut tree, the Applicant does not believe it is worth moving the building all the way over to the driveway.

Chair Cassis asked the Applicant if he was willing to do anything to save the tree. Mr. Curran said he would be replacing it.

Mr. Curran said that the comments from the consultants are all regarding minor issues. The major issues have been addressed. A strip of property from the southerly parcel has been added so that the setback requirements can be met. The buildings have been moved over to meet the setback requirements from Heyn Drive. The landscape issues can be dealt with prior to Final Site Plan submittal.

Mr. Curran said that they liked the split-faced band on their buildings. It is only along the bottom three courses, which is the same white that accents the band above the windows and the doors. The split-face is block. The other white is limestone. The bottom three courses require the Section 9 Façade Waiver.

Chair Cassis asked about the woodland and wetland violations. Mr. Curran responded that the violation is 200-300 feet south of this development. This project sits on five parcels. The violation is on a sixth parcel, which is 700 to 800 feet down from these parcels. Chair Cassis asked whether the violation was on his site. Mr. Curran said that no violation is on his land – it is south of his development.

Member Pehrson read the correspondence received:

Jeff Kasper, 46593 Grand River: Approved of the plan and thought it was a great improvement to the corridor.

Yutaka Matsubara, 26775 Broadway, Novi: Approved of the plan.

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

City Attorney David Gillam asked for the floor. He stated that Mr. Moore was in the audience and is a principal in Group 3, Inc. This group has been before Walled Lake with another project, and Mr. Gillam advises Walled Lake. Mr. Gillam has previously represented Mr. Moore on a barrier-free waiver for a Milford building. That was five or six years ago. Mr. Gillam needed to disclose this to the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission or Mr. Moore objects to Mr. Gillam sitting at the table representing Novi, then he would step aside. No one objected to Mr. Gillam’s presence.

Member Lynch asked what the purpose of the 25-foot buffer standard was. Mr. Schmitt responded that the area is intended to provide landscaping and break up the visual between the detention basin and the parking lot. It helps filter the water – keeping the pesticides out of the basin. It prevents the need for a retaining wall. Most projects need this space. In this case the design criteria just can’t be met. The reason it is in the design manual and not the Ordinance is because it is not necessarily a specific waiver – the design manual is intended as an advisory of how to meet the substantive requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. They were both brought up at this meeting because it has been a long time since they have been mentioned. It reminds the Planning Commission that there is a design manual. If this buffer is waived, it will not have an effect on the function or design of the basin itself. These 25 feet would be planted as opposed to the 25 feet of natural area on the south side of the basin. Dr. Freeland has no problem with the design. The waiver keeps the southerly wetland from being impacted.

Member Lynch asked whether the split-faced block meets acceptable standards – no discoloration, etc. Mr. Schmitt responded that a cast-stone product is common in Novi. The City doesn’t like to see it painted. Some industrial park buildings have been painted. This design uses the cast stone only as an accent band. It is a relatively small amount. It must be granted a waiver because the buildings are right on the road – Region 1. Their proposed product is of standard quality. It is a longstanding building material. Usually communities that go with the brick look tend not to allow as much cast stone. It is one of the trade-offs.

Member Lynch thought the design looked good aesthetically. He was concerned about the quality. Mr. Schmitt said that the CMU product is cast as a unit, and the City just doesn’t want to see it painted. It is colored on its own.

Member Lynch asked why the City should be worried about a violation on another piece of property. Mr. Schmitt responded that the wetland and woodland violations in the area don’t occur on the development property. It does occur on a property that is being included in the development. It is located a substantial distance to the south. It is much closer to Asbury Park than it is to Grand River. As the Applicant mentioned, they are taking an additional ten feet out of that property to meet the setbacks on the subject property. There is a small amount of violated property that is a part of this development. If the Applicant were designing this development within their own property lines, the Planning Commission would probably not be made aware of this violation. Because there is a Woodland Permit associated with this project, the Planning Commission can put the hammer down on the violation at this time. The City is still working on this violation, and it is a matter that the City fully intends to resolve. Because the wetland and woodland issues affect this plan, they were both brought up.

Member Lynch asked what the violation was and whether the Planning Commission should worry about it in terms of reviewing this plan. Mr. Gillam responded that because a portion of the property is part of this project, it can be considered. Additionally, there is some benefit to both the City and Applicant to have this issue resolved at the same time as the site plan review.

Woodland Consultant Doris Hill stated that the violation was discovered on August 1, 2006. A City employee asked Vilican Leman to investigate a possible violation. Ms. Hill responded to that request. She discovered piles of cut timber and some woodchips that were still golden in color. There were disturbed soils. She took several photos. The area may have been farmed at some point in its history. However, the newly disturbed soil was abutting the woodland edge. It looked like heavy equipment was being driven in the area. She reported the information to the City. She felt a violation had occurred. She found a lot of tree stumps in the area. Jeff Heyn owns the property. The City asked her to make an assessment of the damage. She met with Mr. Heyn and some others and they discussed what happened. She had aerials of the site from 1963 through 2005. It appears that the lower area was farmed up until 1974 or 1990. That explains part of the character. The field then went fallow and it reverted to a woodland. When the woodland map was made in 1998, the area was included as a woodland. It had started to succeed. There are some tree trunks that may have been part of eight-inch caliper trees. They would have been cottonwoods or box elder – succession type trees. The wood in the other area was probably a higher quality of wood. She took a sample in two different areas. The one area has silver maple, red maple, a pocket of flowering dogwood, white walnuts, etc. There isn’t a lot of survey data on the site, so it was difficult for Ms. Hill to know exactly where she was. She did find one iron, but she wasn’t sure which corner it represented.

There was a concerned property owner who was afraid some of the violation occurred on his property. Ms. Hill looked at that possibility. She did not think any vegetation was removed from his lot. She did think some of the vegetation was stockpiled in a certain area that she pointed to on the map.

Ms. Hill calculated what she felt represented the make up of a standard 100 square feet section. The numbers are high. She didn’t even consider the one section because of the historical agricultural use. She felt that the number of trees required for replacement cannot feasibly fit on the parcel and still leave room for development. Pending Dr. Freeland’s report, Ms. Hill felt that the maps showed a contiguous wetland with a section of historical crossing, and one section of the wetland seemed burdened in size when the required setbacks and screen berms are considered. She didn’t know if it was feasible to consider development on the far south. She asked Group 3 to consider taking the southern area, planting it, reforesting it, and considering only the area north for future development. The southerly area and the remaining wetland and woodland could then be placed in a Conservation Easement. She pointed to the areas on the map where she suggested these things take place.

Member Lynch asked Ms. Hill whether she had been working with Dr. Freeland. Ms. Hill said that they haven’t been really active on working together on this, and she didn’t know for sure what his take on this violation was. She obviously would want to work with Dr. Freeland on this issue. She said that it is often the case that when a high quality woodland is violated, the mitigation efforts are sometimes infeasible. The property owners must retain their right to develop their property, but the restoration must also be just.

Member Lynch said he just wanted to ensure that the City and the Applicant were working on the resolution of this matter. He thought that protecting an area and allowing a developable section seemed reasonable. It seemed to him that there are processes in place that would allow this to happen. Ms. Hill responded that the Applicant has indicated their willingness to work with the City. Ms. Hill said that some of these areas fall under the jurisdiction of the MDEQ – specifically the area woodland wetland areas.

Member Lynch asked about the black walnut tree. He asked whether there was any kind of win-win for this tree situation. Ms. Hill said this tree has a 44" dbh. It is spectacular. It has radial branching. It is gorgeous. On the other hand, to develop around the tree would require sensitivity to the root zones because walnuts do not tolerate much, like equipment driving on the roots. It would not tolerate a great deal of hydrological changes. It would be a burden to preserve the tree. Did she think it was a tree worth preserving? Of course she did.

Ms. Hill said that Michigan is back on the bandwagon of preserving big trees, and there are some spectacular trees in Novi. This walnut tree is spectacular. It is unique. She also noted that just east of this tree is a 12" sumac that will also be removed. Sumac is usually just a shrub along the roadsides. Ms. Hill felt that if something could be reasonably preserved, then it should be. She reiterated that trees are living things and they cannot be overly impacted.

Member Lynch said that upon listening to the Applicant’s response, it does not seem as though saving the tree is feasible. He hated losing the tree and he hoped that trees would be planted in its stead. Ms. Hill said that she would prefer to have her colleague, Larry DeBrincat, addressed the site plan landscaping.

Member Lynch asked about moving the placement of the building. Mr. Schmitt responded that the Applicant has no interest in redesigning the site. They will replant three 2.5" caliper trees instead.

Member Lipski arrived at 7:54 PM.

Member Wrobel asked whether the City loses any control of the situation if they review this plan without dealing with the violation. Mr. Gillam responded that the City does not waive any of its rights if the Planning Commission does not address this violation. A warning letter has gone to the property owner. Next, Neighborhood Services could issue a citation. Proceedings in the district court would ensue.

Member Wrobel would like to see such a large tree saved. He understood the hardship. He looked at the redesign, and noted Ms. Hill’s comments about surrounding impacts. He wondered what the survival chances were, even if the Applicant agreed to the redesign. Member Wrobel noted that a 150-foot maple died when his house was built – twenty feet away. Though he would like to see the black walnut saved, if it isn’t feasible then the Applicant should cut his losses and move on.

Member Wrobel liked the project. He liked the materials proposed.

Member Meyer thought that the building would have to be moved 72 feet in order to save the tree. He thought that was a little less than being right in the middle of the building. The Applicant suggested that moving the building would place it in the driveway, but Member Meyer thought there was a parking lot. From his perspective, this Applicant has not taken enough time to consider the possibility of saving this tree. He didn’t think the tree was in the middle of the building. Member Meyer didn’t want the plan approved because he did not believe the Applicant has tried to save the tree. Mr. Schmitt said the sketch in the packet was Mr. Myers’ suggestion on how to redesign the property. That building is in the middle of building 2 of the Applicant’s proposed plan. The redesign removes the parking lot, pushes the building over and displaces the parking elsewhere on site.

Mr. Schmitt said that this will all be one property when all is said and done. The redesign was just an alternative. He assumed that the Applicant did consider the redesign.

Chair Cassis said the Applicant’s claim is that this is project is built upon separate parcels. Mr. Schmitt confirmed that there are five parcels. One condition in the Planning Review is that the properties must be combined or a condominium must be filed. The Applicant has not indicated that he would like to pursue a condominium. A condominium would have to be approved by the Planning Commission, so if they choose to take that course they will have to come back before the Planning Commission. As always, the splits or combinations of parcels must take place before the plans get their final stamping set.

Chair Cassis asked whether the concern about the building being shifted on the five parcels was a legitimate concern. Mr. Schmitt said that it was not a concern, which is why it did not get mentioned in the review. The review considered this as one trapezoidal property. Chair Cassis said that the City wants the assemblage, and he appreciated it because it limits curb cuts. This is a beautiful design that will unfold into a campus.

Member Meyer said that even if the parcels were kept in tact, there would still be room on Parcel B to accommodate moving the building. Member Meyer has strong feelings about the tree, but he also understood that trees do die.

Mr. Curran asked for clarification. He said their understanding from the letter was that they were being asked to indicate whether this was going to be a single-unit development with cross-access easements for the parking, or a condominium. The City was told it would not be a condominium. The City was told that each property would house its own building, and cross-access easements would be provided. Mr. Curran said that if this isn’t allowed, he was not told that. Mr. Schmitt said that the Planning Review states that a property combination or a condominium will need to be submitted at the time of Final Site Plan submittal, and before Building plan review can proceed, so that the buildings are not standing on multiple parcels. It is a pretty standard comment from the Planning Department.

Mr. Curran asked why the Building Department would not issue a permit if these were separate parcels. Mr. Schmitt said that there are two conflicting situations at work. First, the buildings do not meet setbacks on their own. Mr. Curran interjected that the buildings do meet their own setbacks; that is how they were designed.

Mr. Schmitt said that the five separate parcels do not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The Building Department is going to run into concerns. If the buildings are set back appropriately for Planning, usually it is okay for Building. But they are going to run into concerns, in terms of distance from property lines, and whether or not it will become an issue here is something that the Planning Department is always going to call out, because the one time it wasn’t called out, it became an issue.

Member Pehrson asked Dr. John Freeland, the Wetland Consultant from ECT, to comment on the violation. Dr. Freeland said that he looked at the property and he thought there was a violation of about 200 square feet (10’ x 20’). It is an area where a skidder or some other piece of equipment pushed woodchips into the edge and beyond the edge of a forested wetland. He thought that it wouldn’t be difficult to rake the area out. It would be the best way to do it. It would cause the least amount of disturbance. There is some wetland encroachment in the area due to the tree cutting activities. He thought the suggestion of replacing trees in other parts of the area made sense. He said the property owner has been asked to stop doing what he has been doing. If this owner is ever going to do site work on this property, the wetland must be delineated and the process must be followed. Dr. Freeland would like to see them rake the chips out of the wetland and restore the area. There is some soil disturbance due to the equipment, but it isn’t like they hauled in soil to fill in the wetland. He thought it was an accident – a slightly overzealous equipment operator pushed the material into the wetland.

Member Pehrson asked how the landowner is notified when the City determines there is a violation. Mr. Gillam responded that the process begins with a notice to the landowner stating the potential violation. It is not a ticket at this point in time. It is an indication that there is a problem and the City is seeking interaction with the landowner to determine if in fact there is a problem. If there is a problem, the City requests that it be taken care of.

Member Pehrson said the buildings seemed well thought out. He had no issue with the Façade Waiver request.

Member Pehrson would like to see a resolution. He asked whether it was worth fighting over the one black walnut tree. Member Pehrson said it was. He asked whether it was worth getting a resolution to the issue which includes the potential for a Conservation Easement for the woodlands and the replacement trees. Given the fact that there is a need for a site condominium, Member Pehrson said he was not in position to approve or deny this project. He would like to see more information from the Applicant.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Lynch:

Chair Cassis said this plan was thoughtful, bringing five parcels together to make a very nice design which is much needed and clean and good. He appreciated that there would be one or two curb cuts instead of four or five curb cuts. He liked the façade. He liked the amenities. The Applicant has exceeded expectations with his parking design. It is an ideal development. But, due to the issues and some misunderstandings, this review has resulted in an impasse with his colleagues. Chair Cassis hoped that the misunderstandings could come to a conclusion. Then, the plan can be reviewed without the Planning Commission having to go back and forth for an hour and a half, asking questions about the problems with the plan. There seems to be a problem with the condominium situation. The Applicant claims that this doesn’t have to be a problem. The Planner says that there must be a condominium. Chair Cassis asked Mr. Gillam to comment on this.

Mr. Gillam responded that this was not discussed at length; the statement in the Planning Review was taken at face value – that a condominium must occur. Based on Mr. Schmitt’s comments, Mr. Gillam agreed with this position. However, he said that it may be an issue that should be looked at more closely from a legal standpoint.

Chair Cassis believed that a development as beautiful as this proposal must go forward. He encouraged the Applicant to huddle with the City and correct the problems. Mr. Schmitt gave a very nice presentation. He was very complimentary of this project. However, members on the Planning Commission have brought up some issues that are very legitimate.

Mr. Curran said his biggest concern is the walnut tree. Despite what Mr. Myers suggested, moving the building 72 feet is more than the currently proposed 58-foot parking lot. That is the whole parking lot plus an additional 14 feet. They have looked at the possibility – even put it on the computer. If he meets with Mr. Schmitt he will get the same issue – can you put it here? If that is what the City wants, Mr. Curran would like it stated: The City wants the sidewalk up against the driveway and then the building. That is what is going to have to happen to save that tree.

Chair Cassis said that there are three or four or five questions. If this list can be narrowed down, then perhaps a compromise can be reached.

Mr. Curran said the wetland and woodland violations are not his issue. They are on their property, but not this subject property. He said that it was the recommendation by the Planning Department to include a sliver of the sixth parcel to this project.

Chair Cassis said that the Planning Commission needs to review a project with as few issues as possible. Mr. Curran said that much he could do. Chair Cassis said that if the number of issues could be reduced, then a compromise could take place.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of RSM Development, LLC, for a recommendation to City Council for rezoning of property in Section 16, south of Twelve Mile between Beck Road and Taft Road, from R-A, Residential Acreage, to OST, Planned Office Service Technology District. The subject property is 8.41 acres.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of RSM Development, LLC, for a recommendation to City Council for rezoning of property in Section 16, south of Twelve Mile between Beck Road and Taft Road, from R-A, Residential Acreage, to OST, Planned Office Service Technology District. The subject property is 10.0 acres.

Planner Mark Spencer described Zoning Map Amendments 18.664 and 18.665 together. In total, there are 18.41 acres, with 17 usable acres once the right-of-ways are removed. This land is south of Twelve Mile and west of the railroad tracks.

To the west is the Keystone Medical Center, which is under development and near completion. To the north is Novi Corporate Campus. To the northeast is the former Steelcrete business, which is mostly abandoned. There is vacant property to the east and to the southeast. To the southwest is a sliver of the Keystone property. Further to the south is the ITC corridor. Even further south is I-96.

The subject property is master planned for Office. The neighboring properties to the east, south and west are also master planned for Office. The properties north of Twelve Mile are master planned for Light Industrial.

The parcels are currently zoned R-A. The Keystone Medical property is zoned OST. The southerly properties are zoned R-A. To the north the property is zoned I-1 for the first 400 feet, then the land is zoned I-2. Further north there is a section of Novi Corporate Campus which was recently rezoned to OST.

The subject parcels do not show any regulated wetlands on the City’s wetland map. This will have to be field delineated and determined at the time of site plan submittal. There are some regulated woodlands – light cover to the east, and medium cover to the south. This will be reviewed in detail with a site plan submittal. The natural features map does not show any natural wildlife habitat areas on this property.

The R-A zoning would allow .8 residential units per acre. Some other uses are permitted in R-A. The OST District would allow general office, medical office, hospitals, data processing, computer centers, medical laboratories, research testing, design and development, technical training centers, hotels, business motels, and other similar uses. The compatibility of the OST District with the surrounding uses should be considered by the Planning Commission. The other uses are being developed toward the office uses. Another Office petition for land further west has been received by the City.

The Planning Department recommends a positive consideration for these proposed rezoning amendments. The OST District is consistent with the Master Plan for Land Use designation. The OST District has been well received and used effectively in the City of Novi for its intended purposes. The rezoning of this property to OST, in conjunction with the expected future rezoning of the adjacent parcels to the east, will allow the development of the site with uses compatible with the industrial developments to the north and the other OST developments surrounding it. The development will benefit from the visibility from Twelve Mile and I-96.

The Engineering Review states that utilities are available. The road has adequate capacity. A traffic study would probably have to be done at the time of Preliminary Site Plan submittal, depending on the size of the building(s) proposed. There are no capacity concerns with water and sewer availability.

Scott Marcus, 809 Benneville, Birmingham, addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of the Applicant. He is the developer of the Keystone Medical project. 60,000 square feet is now open at Keystone. Another 45,000 square feet in Condo Unit 2 has been given an extension and will come on line next. Their intent is to continue to develop these contiguous parcels. The OST District is consistent with their Keystone property. They have some ideas for the land but at this time they are just satisfied with the area and how it is developing.

No one from the audience wished to speak and no correspondence was received so Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing.

Member Lynch asked why the area isn’t zoned OST already. Mr. Spencer responded that the City historically waits for the property owner to seek the rezoning. Member Lynch said he felt the area was perfect for OST.

Member Pehrson said these requests were well-thought out.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Burke:

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Burke:

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Amson Dembs Development for Preliminary Site Plan, Stormwater Management Plan and Woodland Permit approval. The subject property is located in Section 9, at the northeast corner of West Park Drive and Dylan Drive in the OST, Planned Office Service Technology District. The subject property is 7.76 acres and the Applicant is proposing to construct a 45,581 square foot speculative office building.

Planner Mark Spencer described the project. The site is in the Novi Corporate Campus, which was previously approved for roads and utilities. The site is vacant, zoned OST and master planned for Industrial. To the north is vacant land, including City-owned property. To the east and south is vacant land that is part of this campus. Further south is Novi Corporate Campus Lot 3 which is nearing completion. To the west is Great Oaks Landscaping.

The site contains regulated woodlands and wetlands. It contains some Natural Features Habitat, as recognized by Oakland County.

The warehouse portion of the building is accessory to the office portion. The Planning Department recommends approval of the site plan subject to a Planning Commission Waiver for loading zone screening requirements. The view of the loading area must be shielded from right-of-way areas and adjacent properties. This loading space is screened by the u-shaped portion of the building. It is partially in view from West Park and the neighboring City property. The Planning Commission will need to determine if that is acceptable.

The Planning Review indicates there are a few issues to be corrected. The Applicant has been asked to add a sidewalk connection to the Dylan sidewalk connection.

The Façade Review indicates a Section 9 Façade Waiver is necessary. The building material is similar to Building 3. This façade was reviewed for Region 3 standards instead of Region 1 standards. Region 1 does not permit split-faced block or ribbed metal panels. The Applicant proposes from 17-30% block and 14% standing seam metal for the equipment screening. It is similar to the design of Building 3. The percentages were provided for each of the façades.

The Engineering Review and Traffic Review both recommend approval with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

The Wetland Review and Woodland Review both recommend approval with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. The wetlands are being mitigated for the entire campus. It is located on this lot.

The Landscape Review recommends approval subject to the addition of a four-foot landscape bed around the foundation.

Larry Stoby represented Amson Dembs. He again requested the Façade Waiver. They may have 50% of the building leased already. He promised not to comprise the integrity of the development in any way.

No one from the audience wished to speak and no correspondence was received so Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing.

Member Pehrson thanked the Applicant for his design. He liked the common theme. He did not have a problem with the Façade Waiver request. He did not have a problem with the Screening Waiver request, especially in light of the fact that this building will be dealing mostly with Federal Express type vehicles. He didn’t have a problem with the mitigation area. He understood that the Applicant would take care of the foundation landscaping and the sidewalk requests.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Burke:

Chair Cassis said that this is a great project with the City and Applicant coming together to bring jobs to Novi. It is a win-win situation. The City is familiar with this Applicant’s quality construction. He appreciated their efforts.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Meyer:

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Burke:

There were no Consent Agenda Removals for Commission Action.

There were no Matters for Discussion.

City Attorney David Gillam told the Planning Commission that he has been appointed City Attorney for Royal Oak. He thanked the Planning Commission for allowing him to learn from them. The Planning Commission wished him well.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Moved by Member Wrobel,

The meeting adjourned at 9:18 p.m.

MON 09/25/06 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 09/27/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

TUE 10/03/06 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

MON 10/09/06 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 10/11/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 10/23/06 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 10/25/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

WED 11/08/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

FRI 11/10/06 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

MON 11/13/06 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 11/14/06 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

THU/FRI 11/23 & 11/24 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

MON 11/27/06 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 11/29/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

Transcribed by Jane L. Schimpf, October 5, 2006 Signature on File

Date Approved: October 11, 2006 Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date