The meeting was called to order at or about 7:00 PM.

Present:  Members John Avdoulos, Brian Burke, Victor Cassis, Andrew Gutman (7:06 PM), Michael Lynch, Michael Meyer, Mark Pehrson, Wayne Wrobel

Absent:  Member David Lipski (excused)

Also Present:  Steve Rumple, Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth, Deputy Director of Community Development; Kristen Kapelanski, Planner; David Beschke, Landscape Architect; Ben Croy, Civil Engineer; Kristin Kolb, City Attorney

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

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

No one from the audience wished to speak.

There was no correspondence to share.

Chair Cassis said that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee has been actively meeting for the past couple of weeks regarding the Master Plan update.

Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth stated that the second reading on the NCC Educational Facilities language was approved by City Council. Also, the Planning Commission may also review plans in the future regarding T-Mobile’s request to place a cell tower in Lakeshore Park. City Council has approved a resolution to consider this request.

There were no Consent Agenda items.

The Public Hearing was opened for Woodland Permit approval. The subject property is located in Section 32, north of Eight Mile, west of Beck Road, in the RA, Residential Acreage District. The Applicant seeks to clear approximately 3,600 square feet of understory from the regulated woodland in his rear yard.

Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth explained the Applicant’s request to clear understory for the purpose of installing a grass lawn. The Planning Commission previously approved a wrought iron fence for this property and it has since been installed.

Mr. Jeff Backus addressed the Planning Commission. He wished to extend his lawn area in his rear yard. This extension, at its deepest measurement, would add another fifteen feet. The area tapers to three feet as it nears the side yards. All trees greater than four inches in diameter will be saved. The saplings will be transplanted into the woodland. Realistically, not all of them will survive. He has met with Forester Steve Printz three or four times to review this request. Mr. Backus wants to ensure that the City approves of this plan. He offered to plant eight more tree credits - species acceptable to Steve Printz. Mr. Backus said he may have to install some additional sprinkler heads, but he plans to work with his irrigation company to install sprinkler heads that can shoot water that far so that the system does not have to be extended.

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

Member Avdoulos reviewed the information and found the information from the Applicant and Mr. Printz in good order. He felt that the Applicant was working well with the City, and the City is getting a benefit from his request. The understory removal is a request that Mr. Printz has found to be acceptable. Member Avdoulos confirmed that the Single Family Residential fence guarantee is $500.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Lynch:

Member Gutman arrived at 7:06 PM.

City Attorney Kristin Kolb asked the maker of the motion to add the Ordinance Section in his reason for granting the approval. The maker and the seconder of the motion agreed.

Member Meyer asked if this was setting a precedent in the City. Landscape Architect David Beschke responded that there have been other requests within this same development with woodland items – this one is not a violation. As long as the City can back their reason, he did not find that this is precedent-setting.

Ms. Kolb said that there is adequate documentation from Mr. Beschke and Mr. Printz indicating why this is a good candidate for a Woodland Permit. The request stays out of the conservation easement and the Applicant is not removing any trees. These permits are determined on a case-by-case basis.

Member Meyer complimented the Applicant for offering the eight tree credits.

Chair Cassis saw the request as an adjustment to the Applicant’s back yard. It is meant to accommodate some distance between the trees and the Applicant’s home. Chair Cassis was comfortable with the request.

The Public Hearing was opened for Planning Commission’s recommendation to City Council for an ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 97-18, as amended, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance, for modifications to Article 30, Administration and Enforcement, Section 3004, Temporary Special Land Use Permits.

Planner Kristen Kapelanski explained that the City has been receiving calls for temporary sales from transient merchants. The City’s concern is that the more permanent businesses have invested greater capital in an effort to improve their facilities and attract customers on a year-round basis as opposed to the temporary merchants that pop up around the City. As such, City Council asked the City Attorney to work with Code Enforcement to propose amendments to the Ordinance.

The proposed changes deal with Section 3004 of the Zoning Ordinance. The first proposed change delineates the different kinds of temporary uses – separating tent and sidewalk sales and temporary weekend flower sales from longer term sales that don’t necessarily compete with local businesses, such as produce markets and Christmas tree sales. As a part of the proposed changes, sidewalk and weekend flower sales must now be accessory to a principal permitted use on the property and have shorter time limits than other temporary uses.

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

Member Pehrson applauded these efforts. It establishes rules for the temporary uses.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Member Meyer hoped that the language wouldn’t discourage people from selling flowers in the City, but he understood the need for the language.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Anthony Randazzo for a recommendation to City Council for consideration of a Planned Rezoning Overlay, in conjunction with Zoning Map Amendment 18.670. The subject property is located in Section 36, east of Haggerty Road, north of Eight Mile, in the FS, Freeway Service District. The subject property is 0.41 acres and the Applicant is proposing a 2,500 square foot office building.

Planner Kristen Kapelanski explained the rezoning request was in conjunction with a PRO, Planned Rezoning Overlay. The property is zoned FS, Freeway Service, and the Applicant proposes B-3, General Business. The site is master planned for Community Commercial. To the northeast are the Benihana Restaurant and Coney Island in Farmington Hills, zoned Expressway Service and master planned for Expressway Service and Quasi Public Services; To the west are a regional detention basin owned by the City and the Sheraton Hotel, zoned OSC and master planned for Office; To the south are a detention basin and Taco Bell, zoned FS. To east in Farmington Hills is a hotel under construction. Farmington Hills has also reviewed this plan.

There are no wetlands or woodlands on the site. However, there is an existing twenty-foot utility easement that runs through the center of the site. The area can be paved over, but no structures can be built upon it.

The Staff supports the request as it is consistent with the Master Plan and existing character of the area as a commercial and office corridor. In addition, B-3 zoning will allow a small site greater development flexibility.

The Traffic Review supports the request and had no major comments. The Engineering Review also indicates no major issues with the request.

The Applicant appeared before the Master Plan and Zoning Committee on April 12, 2007 and at that time the Committee suggested that the Applicant consider a PRO. All disciplines reviewed the plan. The Traffic Review and Landscape Review recommend approval with minor items to be addressed at the time of Preliminary Site Plan submittal. The Engineering Review recommended approval and noted that a City Council Waiver for a secondary access will be required. The Fire Department Review recommended approval.

The Planning Review recommended approval as the Applicant has met the requirements of Article 34, and the Concept Plan and the PRO Agreement conform to the PRO Ordinance. There are a number of conditions proposed in the PRO. Major conditions include a limited list of approved uses, extension of the public sidewalk along the adjacent property to the south, additional landscaping to the south provided the owner of that site allows it, or an equivalent amount of landscaping on the City’s property to the west, and the extension of the sidewalk 500 feet on the westerly City property, provided the southerly property owner allows the Applicant to discharge into the existing detention basin to the south. There are a number of conditions relating to the building and parking setbacks, the loading zone and the landscape standards that would be included in the PRO.

A new project in Farmington Hills has been proposed to the northeast of the subject property. This will be a gas station and an accessory carwash, and these will be adjacent to the hotel under construction. These two sites will share an access drive. The gas station was slated on a Farmington Hills Planning Commission agenda but Ms. Kapelanski did not know if the Planning Commission had approved the plan. There isn’t much room for the project.

Mr. Matt Diffin of Diffin Development addressed the Planning Commission. He is the civil engineer on this project. He introduced Joe Locricchio, Mr. Randazzo’s representative.

Chair Cassis opened the floor up for public comment:

Ron Katzman, Design Build, architect for Holiday Inn: He was speaking on behalf of Ned Hakim of Holiday Inn. Their site is zoned Expressway Service, and Farmington Hills would not allow them to change their designation. Farmington Hills wanted uniform zoning in that area. Their site complies with all requirements of the Expressway Service District. They noted that this building will only be four feet off of their property line, and they have extensive landscaping in that area. They are not in favor of this rezoning, though they wouldn’t have a problem with an office building provided the Applicant meets the setback requirements.

Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing.

Member Pehrson remembered that the last time they reviewed this site the Planning Commission was worried about the size of the property and what any development might do to the traffic. He applauded the Applicant for turning in the rezoning request with a PRO – this is a great mechanism to use when the parcel is tough to work with based on its size or shape. The differences between B-3 and FS are minor; Member Pehrson did not have a problem with the B-3 request. It has some compliance with the Master Plan. He promised to review the Preliminary Site Plan with the same scrutiny as before regarding the traffic, setback and all other potential ZBA issues. The City understands that this is a viable piece of property and the City can’t stop the developers from doing what they want; he continues to struggle with the concept of a project that will have a laundry list of variance requests.

Any variations from the Ordinance will be incorporated into the PRO Agreement, Ms. Kapelanski said. This Applicant would not go to the ZBA – those issues would become part of the Agreement. The Applicant is leaving out several permissible uses – gas stations and other large traffic generators. Gas stations and car washes would be allowed in the FS District – and these would probably cause traffic concerns. With the PRO, this Applicant is proposing a lighter traffic use – an office building.

Member Lynch remembered meeting with this Applicant at the Master Plan and Zoning Committee level. He said that the PRO can eliminate the biggest nightmare – a high-traffic user. He did not have a problem with this request and found it to be a nice solution that would nip the traffic problem.

Member Wrobel asked how a PRO affects the future use of the property. City Attorney Kristin Kolb said that even if the building were to fall down, the owner would still be bound by the terms of the PRO. The PRO runs with the land. Member Wrobel felt that an office building is aesthetically out of place amongst the fast food restaurants and the gas station, though he conceded that this might be the best use in a bad situation.

Member Avdoulos remembered the history of this site and the issues with emergency exiting with the carwash design. This property is tight and is less than one-half acre. The Applicant has the right to try and put what they can on this site within the guidelines of the Zoning Ordinance. A more intense use could go on this site with the FS District. This development can work, though the site is tight. The Applicant has proposed a placement of his building that parallels the Holiday Inn. They have provided two options for the elevation. Elevation B mimics the Holiday Inn a bit, with a domed gable rather than a peak. He preferred Elevation A. He thought that the scale of this project could fit okay on this site.

Member Avdoulos asked about the Landscape Review. The Landscape Architect suggested that the hotel is residential and required a berm; the Applicant did not agree with that statement. Mr. David Beschke said that it is a quasi-residential use. If considered Commercial, no buffer is required. He assumed that some buffer might be wanted. Because this is a PRO, this can be addressed. It is not a requirement but it is something that the Planning Commission may wish to consider. He thought that this Applicant might want the buffer more than the hotel.

Member Avdoulos asked about the 550-foot walk. Ms. Kapelanski explained that the PRO conditions are all the conditions on the long list attached to the Planning Review. The bullets are just a summary. The City understands that if the Applicant can get permission to discharge into the detention basin to the south, they will provide the extra sidewalk.

Member Avdoulos appreciated the Traffic Review and the intensity of the traffic from this site. The medical office choice was used for a higher traffic count. A gas station would yield about 78 hourly AM trips versus about four for a medical office.

Member Avdoulos said that the intensity of this will be reduced with this PRO, but unfortunately, a gas station coming on board in Farmington Hills defeats this City’s idea of reducing traffic along this road. Now there will be big, big traffic problems, right at the bend in the road. He supports the PRO for this site because it gives the City some discretion in maintaining the intensity of this site. Anything more intense would be too much. The Fire Marshal has looked at this plan. There may be some adjustments along the way. The parking is to the south, the widest area of the site. The hotel has done some work and Member Avdoulos suggested that this Applicant provide landscaping that complements the site and the neighboring site. Provide some screening for both the neighbor and the subject project. Enhance the building and allow some visual connection. It almost might be that the landscaping should also go behind the building to create a backdrop so the building doesn’t get lost inside the building behind it.

Member Avdoulos appreciated the sketches provided. He thought this was a workable project and a better solution for this site than the car wash previously proposed.

Member Meyer found it fascinating that the PRO would eliminate the Applicant’s need to go to the ZBA. He applauded this process as it reduces the hurdles over which an applicant must jump.

Member Burke said there wasn’t a lot that can be done with this site. He supported the PRO as he thought it was making the best out of a difficult piece of property. He liked Elevation B.

Member Gutman also thought this was a good solution. He had no elevation preference.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Burke:

Chair Cassis asked the Applicant about whether he has explored cross access with the neighbor. Mr. Locricchio said they explored it with Mr. Hakim and he had no interest in the concept. Chair Cassis told both the Applicant and Mr. Katzman that the greatest importance here was that the area remain safe as it relates to the designing of the sites along Haggerty. This should be of utmost importance to both this Applicant and Holiday Inn. Mr. Katzman said he was only the architect and he was unaware of any discussions between the two. The Holiday Inn owner is against this building because it will block the view of his property. Mr. Katzman said that as a professional, he understood that a cross access would be beneficial and Holiday Inn would only lose one or two parking spaces. He explained that the owner of the Holiday Inn missed the MDOT auction and therefore could not buy the property.

Chair Cassis said that the Holiday Inn owner must continue to cooperate and not hold missing the chance to purchase this property against its new owner. Chair Cassis asked Mr. Katzman to help with this design. Mr. Katzman said perhaps he could take a copy of the proposal to Mr. Hakim and show him how the cross access could be beneficial to him as well.

Mr. Katzman told Chair Cassis that he thought the building looked like a nice design. Chair Cassis said that this is a nice design, and the Holiday Inn is who is putting up the gas station and increasing the traffic. Expensive gas stations don’t generate much profit. Mr. Katzman said he explained to Mr. Hakim that if the gas station were to go in, the lights would have to be toned down so as not to affect the hotel residents. Mr. Katzman said he will talk to Mr. Hakim.

Chair Cassis said that the Planning Commission previously declined a carwash. This proposal with a PRO will result in an office building/service use. Mr. Diffin noted that Elevation B would lend itself more to the service uses.

Mr. Diffin said that the easement is the Buckeye Gas Pipeline Easement. The Applicant has already received approval from them.

Chair Cassis said the public benefits are listed on page five of the Planning Review. There is a tax benefit. There is beautification of the site. There will be improved drainage. There will be a sidewalk installed along Haggerty. There will be a creation of jobs. Certain permitted uses have been excluded. With these benefits, and the other conditions, Chair Cassis supported the plan. He thought this plan would be an improvement and he hoped the two owners could get together and cooperate.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Pehrson:

There were no Consent Agenda Removals.

There were no Matters for Discussion.

There were no Supplemental Issues.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Moved by Member Gutman:

The meeting adjourned at 8:07 PM.

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

WED 07/04/07 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

TUE 07/10/07 MASTER PLAN AND ZONING COMMITTEE MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 07/10/07 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

WED 07/11/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 07/23/07 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 07/24/07 MASTER PLAN AND ZONING COMMITTEE MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 07/25/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 08/07/07 MASTER PLAN AND ZONING COMMITTEE MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 08/07/07 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

WED 08/08/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 08/13/07 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

Transcribed by Jane L. Schimpf, July 6, 2007 Signature on File

Date Approved: July 11, 2007 Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date