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

Present:  Members Brian Burke, Victor Cassis, Andrew Gutman, Michael Meyer, Wayne Wrobel

Absent: John Avdoulos (Excused), David Greco (Excused), Michael Lynch (Excused), Mark Pehrson (Excused)

Also Present:  Barbara McBeth, Deputy Director of Community Development; Kristen Kapelanski, Planner; Ben Croy, Civil Engineer; David Beschke, Landscape Architect; Stephen Dearing, Traffic Consultant; Alan Hall, Façade Consultant; Kristin Kolb, City Attorney

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

Chair Cassis proposed a discussion of a Youth Commission and Member Wrobel proposed the realignment of Agenda items.

Moved by Member Wrobel, seconded by Member Gutman:

No one from the audience wished to speak.

There was no correspondence to share.

There were no Committee Reports.

Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth recounted some recent City Council events. Three first readings of text amendments were approved: the RC and PD2 Text Amendment; the Temporary Special Exception and Temporary Special Land Use Permits, and Public Hearing and Board of Appeals Text Amendments. The Ordinance Review Committee is going to revisit the Sign Ordinance Text Amendment. The final copy of the Master Plan Amendment was provided to the Planning Commission for their records.

There was no Consent Agenda.

Consideration of the request of BEI Associates Inc., for Preliminary Site Plan and Stormwater Management Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 27, south of Ten Mile and east of Taft Road in the

R-4, One-Family Residential District. The subject property is approximately 7.0 acres and the Applicant is proposing to demolish and reconstruct the Novi Public Library.

Planner Kristen Kapelanski stated that the new Novi Public Library will be constructed on the same site as the existing library on Ten Mile just east of the Civic Center on a seven-acre site. The subject property is bordered by Ten Mile and single family homes to the north, the Civic Center to the east, Novi High School to the south and the Fuerst Farm property to the west. The proposed library will be a two-story building with an area of approximately 55,227 square feet. The subject property is zoned R-4, One-Family Residential, and bordered by R-4 on all sides. The Master Plan indicates public uses for the subject property and the properties to the east and far west. Education uses are planned for the property to the south with single family uses for the property across Ten Mile.

There are no natural features on the site.

The Planning review indicated six Ordinance Deviations and minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. Ordinance Deviations include a deviation from the building height, a Deviation for the northern building and parking setback, a Deviation for the rear loading zone screening, a Deviation for the lack of setback of the proposed dumpster and a Deviation for the required dumpster screening.

The Landscape Review noted minor items to address and one waiver required for the lack of canopy trees along Ten Mile.

The Traffic, Fire and Engineering Reviews all noted minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

The Façade Review noted a Section 9 Façade Waiver is required for the use of precast concrete, underage of brick material on the west façade and the use of metal louvers and wood veneer panels. It is the recommendation of our Façade Consultant that the dumpster screening, currently wood veneer panels, be altered to meet the requirements of the Façade Ordinance. The Façade Consultant did not note any concerns with the other material waivers.

Chris Kittides of BEI Associates represented the Applicant. He offered to answer questions.

Member Meyer thought much effort had gone into the preparation of these plans. He complimented the outside reading area, and the fireplace area for reading on the inside. He was concerned about the building’s appearance because the rendering provided to the Planning Commission was not very appealing. Member Meyer asked the City Attorney to explain the Ordinance Deviations.

City Attorney Kristin Kolb said that the issues need to be addressed, but they may be resolved through the Planning Commission’s approval of the site plan. The City Attorney’s office opines that no additional action by the City is required. Ms. Kolb said that Staff has outlined where the plan deviates from the Ordinance. If the Planning Commission desires to approve of those deviations, that is the end of the discussion. The Deviations would have to be listed in the motion.

Member Meyer asked Chair Cassis about the Section 9 Façade Waiver. Chair Cassis asked that a better rendering be displayed for the consideration of this project. Library Director Julie Farkas said she would return with a better rendering.

Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth suggested that the Façade Consultant explain the façade while the Planning Commission waited for the updated rendering. Ms. Farkas showed a smaller rendering of the east side where a drive-through area is located. The main entrance and meeting room area were located for the Planning Commission.

Ms. Kapelanski said that the Façade Waiver omission was a clerical error, and that the Planning Commission should include it in the motion if they desire. The façade materials board was available at the meeting for the Planning Commission to review.

Alan Hall said the dominant material is brick. The spandrel glass is part of the Ordinance, but clear glass is not. The one façade is predominantly glass and was designed to let natural light into the building. There are two veneer panel elements with laminate backers. It is similar to the Providence Hospital material. The design proposes some striping – with the yellow and wood elements. The material is durable. The building will look modern. Pre-cast concrete will look like a base. The Ordinance prohibits concrete, but since it’s being used as the base, it will serve as a background to the landscaping. There is a pre-cast seating area by the front door. It matches the base and has been presented in a tasteful manner. The wood fencing for the dumpster screening is proposed for two sides. Wood is prohibited in Region 1 because of the material itself and the need for maintenance. This material should be replaced by something allowed by the Ordinance.

Member Meyer was pleased that the ambience of the project has been spiked with additional landscaping. This is a significant building for any City, because it promotes the ongoing education of all citizens. Member Meyer hoped that the genius of the architectural design would be on par with the genius expected from within the building.

Member Wrobel asked for clarification of the term "spandrel." Mr. Hall responded that it is opaque. It has ashiness, but it has the ability to hide structures. Translucent glass can be seen through. Some of the glass will allow light but not vision. Member Wrobel said he would wait to see the other rendering.

Member Burke confirmed that the western façade is mostly glass. The south elevation uses aluminum louvers that aren’t used anywhere else on the elevation, but in this case are part of the HVAC screening.

Member Burke confirmed that the Staff was satisfied with the Applicant’s response letter.

Mark Sturing is a Library Board and Building Authority Trustee. He said that there are better renderings of the building. The west-side glass is intentional, as it will be facing the Fuerst Farm. Mr. Sturing said there are seven Library Board members. The Library Board and City Council have delegated the authority of this building to the Building Authority. The Library Board is well-represented on the Building Authority.

Member Gutman asked what would be a good recommendation for the dumpster screening. Mr. Hall suggested that a non-prohibited material, like brick, should be used. The Ordinance recommends that the material matches the building. Mr. Kittides responded that they are recommending the wood screening, which is the same color as the building, because it is less expensive. Additionally, there is a chance that garbage trucks might hit the enclosure. Many gyrations of this building were considered before the Building Authority and Library Board settled on this design.

Ms. Farkas showed a better rendering of the library, though it shows the meeting room incorrectly. The window area on the west side will be near the loose periodical area. The library engineer said that the glass is double-paned and is about one inch thick. The translucent panels are much thicker.

Member Meyer liked the better rendering; it played down the "Casio keyboard" appearance. Member Meyer wished for the Applicant to improve the dumpster enclosure. Mr. Kittides said it would add about $25-30,000 to use brick for the enclosure.

Member Gutman thought the dumpster enclosure could be designed for significantly less with the right material.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Meyer:

Clarification was made that the Section 9 Waiver did not provide for a wood dumpster screening design.

Chair Cassis thanked the Library for showing the better rendering. He thought the design was pleasant and educational looking. He said the Library rebuild is a one-time affair. The City has to do it right. The children and the senior citizens must both be able to see that the City did the best in designing this site. It would not be right to add wood around that dumpster. Chair Cassis said that it would be worth it to seek additional money out of the general fund to ensure that the dumpster enclosure is adequately designed. He also hopes to seek relief from the Rotary for this upgraded purchase. Chair Cassis wished the Library well.

Member Meyer hoped that the glass used on the site will be strong enough to withstand a heavy wind. He also was pleased that the Library has agreed to keep its construction debris to a minimum.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Meyer:

Consideration of the request of ACR Investments, LLC, for Preliminary Site Plan and Stormwater Management Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 36, east of Haggerty Road and north of Eight Mile in the B-3, General Business District. The subject property is approximately 0.48 acres and the Applicant is proposing the construction of a 2,575 square-foot single story office building.

Planner Kristen Kapelanski stated that the Applicant is proposing the development of an approximately 2,575 square-foot single story office building on the east side of Haggerty Road, north of Eight Mile. To the northeast are Benihana Restaurant and a Coney Island Restaurant, both in Farmington Hills. To the west are a City-owned regional detention basin and the Sheraton Hotel. To the south are a detention basin and a Taco Bell. To the east in the City of Farmington Hills is a hotel.

This property was recently rezoned from FS, Freeway Service, to B-3 with a Planned Rezoning Overlay to facilitate the development of this site. The site is bordered by OSC, Office Service Commercial to the west, FS, Freeway Service to the south, and ES, Expressway Service in the City of Farmington Hills to the east. The future land use map indicates Community Commercial uses for the subject property with office uses to the west and although not shown on the map, Expressway Service and quasi-public uses in the City of Farmington Hills.

There are no wetlands or woodlands on the subject property as indicated by the natural features map.

The Applicant has already presented his concept plan which has since been attached to the PRO Agreement. Any variances that could be identified at that time were included in the PRO Agreement and therefore will not appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals.

The Planning, Landscape, Traffic, Engineering and Fire Reviews all recommend approval with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. The Façade Review noted the Applicant would be requesting a Section 9 Façade Waiver for the overage of asphalt shingles on all four sides and for the siding on the north and south facades. The City’s Façade Consultant does not recommend granting the Section 9 Waiver since the asphalt shingles are not harmonious with adjacent buildings in the area. Ms. Kapelanski said it was worth noting that the Applicant did submit conceptual elevations along with their PRO. The conceptual elevations show a similar building façade to the one currently presented with the Preliminary Site Plan. They do not indicate a specific roof material; rather the conceptual elevations merely indicate a black roof.

Alan Hall, the City’s Façade Consultant, said the Waiver was necessary for the shingles and the siding. Previously, it was stated that the shingles are not harmonious with the adjacent area; this is not the case. The Holiday Inn Express uses shingles. The greater concern is that the pitch of the building roof lends itself to a residential, not commercial, feel.

Joe Locricchio and Matt Diffen represented the project. Mr. Locricchio noted that the building could be used for either office or retail uses. Certain uses were removed from the PRO Agreement because their parking needs may overwhelm the site and cause too much traffic.

Chair Cassis reminded the Applicant that the Planning Commission was concerned about traffic when the Concept Plan went through. He asked about the shingles. Mr. Locricchio responded that it would be a high-quality, conventional shingle. Chair Cassis asked that the Applicant use a heavy-weighted shingle that will withstand the elements. Mr. Locricchio said that the lap siding could be eliminated in favor of an all-brick building, if the roof can be approved as is.

Member Wrobel said that after the first review of this plan, there were three massive storms and the detention pond was totally submerged. He could not approve any development for this area unless is assured that this flooding issue will not happen again. This Applicant will lose his parking lot or perhaps part of his building.

Civil Engineer Ben Croy responded that the flooding in the low-lying area is indeed a concern. The basin limits are exceeded during rains. This Applicant’s wall will help, but it will have to be ensured that the final site elevation is higher than the high-water elevation. If the overflow structure doesn’t work, then the concern is that the water will get onto this site. Member Wrobel noted that the 100-year rate used in the calculations was .15, not .20. Mr. Croy responded that the number is theoretical. These numbers will be used for future reference. This building is not going to add more water to the area.

Member Wrobel does not want this Applicant to be in a swamp. Mr. Croy thought that perhaps at the next rain event the City could visit the basin to see how it is operating in relation to the rim elevations. The control structure can be observed to see if it can handle the flow or if the flow is exceeding the outlet capacity. Chair Cassis interjected that the City has to be careful in their handling of this matter.

Mr. Loccrichio said that the majority of the site in its current condition is a ditch. They will be filling the site in to a height a bit higher than the road out front. This amounts to five or six feet in some spots. He said that the pond, when filled, is nowhere near the road elevation. The overflow structure is set at a certain elevation. The water can spread out over a larger distance until that height is met. That measurement is probably two feet below the street, or two feet below this site. Once the water hits the overflow structure, the water will flow unrestricted into the drain that is adjacent. This design ensures that Haggerty Road will never flood. Mr. Locricchio noted that his plan does take care of this site’s stormwater. There is an enclosed storm sewer that will reroute the Haggerty Road water to the pond.

Member Wrobel asked where the water goes from this pond. Mr. Croy thought it flowed in a southeasterly direction through a culvert to a ditch along the MDOT right-of-way. He thought the water flowed south from there. The outlet structure is maintained by the City and the ditch is under the jurisdiction of MDOT. There was a blockage at one time, and the City worked with MDOT to open the culvert up. As long as the culvert can flow freely, then the Applicant is correct that the water should never exceed the rim elevation. This is an ongoing maintenance issue.

Member Wrobel said he could support the plan if the properties will not be adversely affected by the water. He wanted to ensure that the City keeps the water flowing properly.

Member Gutman said the biggest issue for him was the façade. He asked Mr. Hall to comment. Mr. Hall explained that he supported the waiver, especially if the Applicant removes the siding materials. The siding is prohibitive. The shingles are harmonious, and the Applicant has also agreed to use a thirty-pound weight shingle.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Chair Cassis said the Planning Commission and Master Plan and Zoning Committee have gone the distance with this plan. The City is cognizant of the site constraints: it is small, triangular and there is sensitivity regarding the elevations of the area. He felt that the City and Applicant have really come together on a particular building and arrangement that will satisfy the Applicant and will be a good building use that will bring taxes into the City.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Member Wrobel asked whether the maintenance of the basin should be clarified in the motion. Mr. Croy responded that it was not necessary because the Ordinance already calls for the maintenance of the basin.

Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth discussed the submittal of Farmington Hills’ Master Plan. Planner Mark Spencer reviewed the document and found that it was generally in compliance with the City of Novi Master Plan. Farmington Hills reviewed only certain segments of their plan, as so much of the existing plan was still viable. The freeway redevelopment area will allow more intense development. There is about a four-mile stretch of this designation adjacent to Novi along Haggerty. These areas can have taller buildings (than the three stories currently allowed), and perhaps the buildings can range as high as 95-100 feet; LEED certification is encouraged; Farmington Hills will promote best management practices for stormwater quality and control, similar to Novi’s Design and Construction Standards; parking decks will be encouraged to promote open space; Farmington Hills will broaden the list of uses in the large office and industrial districts. No Ordinance language has yet been prepared.

Ms. McBeth said that Haggerty Road operates at an "F" level between Nine and Ten Mile roads. Staff recommends that Farmington Hills consider the necessary road improvements that would accompany the more intense development prior to the development taking place. She suggested they should consider the three-lane design similar to what was done between Eight and Nine Mile roads.

Staff recommends setbacks of at least 100 feet from residential property. They will also recommend variations in building materials, and mitigation of interior and exterior lighting, and maybe stepbacks and relief requirements for the taller buildings, much like the updates Novi made to its OST Ordinance. Staff commends Farmington Hills for their natural features inclusion, the stream corridor identification, and the best management practices. Novi and Farmington Hills share Ingersoll Creek and a little forested area near the interchange.

Chair Cassis asked about the text amendments. Ms. McBeth explained that the Master Plan will be used as their guideline and policy so that text amendments can be designed to accommodate the new Master Plan. As friendly neighbors, Novi would like to make the aforementioned text amendment suggestions, similar to Novi’s OST Ordinance.

Chair Cassis thought it was interesting that Farmington Hills is "redeveloping" and Novi is still "developing." Ms. McBeth noted that Farmington Hills has only 3% vacant land. She suggested that at a future meeting Mr. Spencer could provide an overview of his Planning Conference, both the seminars and his meetings with other communities such as Farmington Hills. It is always interesting to hear about what other communities have done and are planning to do.

Member Meyer thanked Ms. McBeth for her comments. He suggested that Chair Cassis highlight the road improvements in his response to Farmington Hills. Member Meyer also thought that the 100-foot setback was a good suggestion as well.

Staff will prepare a Farmington Hills Master Plan review letter for Chair Cassis to sign. The Planning Commission informally agreed to send the letter.

Moved by Member Wrobel, seconded by Member Gutman:

Public Hearing 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, relating to communication antenna towers and poles.

Member Wrobel works for AT&T and has worked on cell tower projects from time to time. Accordingly, these efforts would fall under this Ordinance, if he were to work in Novi. He does not currently work in the Novi area, but he asked his fellow Planning Commission members if they wished for him to recuse himself. He felt he could be objective and fair, but he preferred to have the members determine whether they saw a conflict of interest with his consideration of this text amendment. City Attorney Kristin Kolb said that a direct financial interest could present a reason for recusal; she did not consider Member Wrobel’s current review of this text amendment to be an issue. Member Wrobel confirmed that if he were to work on a Novi project, his salary would not increase, and he may never work in Novi. Ms. Kolb noted that the policy under the law disfavors a Planning Commission member not participating. The point is Planning Commission members are appointed to do a job. The Planning Commission members wanted Member Wrobel to join in this Public Hearing.

Kristen Kapelanski described the proposed changes before the Planning Commission, on which they were asked to provide a recommendation to City Council. The updates relate to Section 2508.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Commercial Television and Radio Towers, Communication Antennas, Public Utility Microwave Towers and Public Utilities T.V. Transmitting Towers.

Staff proposes modifications to allow the installation of outdoor equipment cabinets, provided that the equipment is contained within a screened equipment compound. Presently, it has been Staff’s interpretation of the Ordinance that all outside cabinets must be placed within an equipment shelter building to be composed of brick on all sides and with a gabled roof. This text amendment is the result of recent requests and appeals to the ZBA by Applicants who wish to place their equipment cabinets outside of a shelter but within an existing equipment compound area.

To give the Planning Commission an idea of what equipment cabinets and brick shelters look like, Ms. Kapelanski showed various pictures to the members. The City currently requires metal cabinets to be placed inside of a brick shelter. In addition, language is proposed to allow wireless communication facilities to be placed on the roof of a building or on other structures with additional standards for Residential districts.

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

Member Burke asked for clarification of what a "stealth design" might be. Ms. Kapelanski said that the towers could look like a tree, be enclosed in the steeple of a church, a flag pole, etc. Member Burke asked whether the City had any say in a tower on a public school site. Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth said that public schools are somewhat exempt from the typical Zoning Ordinance standards. Ms. McBeth said that the City offers its services to review cell towers proposed for public school property.

Member Wrobel noted that in today’s economy there is a lot of theft of metal. He hoped that this did not become a problem in Novi, and he hoped that cell tower installers would consider this issue when designing their sites. Ms. McBeth said that the equipment compound, usually some type of fenced enclosure, will still be required.

Chair Cassis said that safety is an issue, as sometimes kids seek these cell towers out for the sake of curiosity.

Member Wrobel said the fence is a good idea and ideally, the building provides the maximum protection. The enclosures do address the major complaint that neighbors don’t want to see the equipment. The infamous "tree cell tower" in Novi sticks out like a sore thumb because there isn’t a tree of similar size within ten miles of that location.

Chair Cassis felt this text amendment was keeping up with the changes happening around the nation.

Moved by Member Meyer, seconded Member Burke:

Chair Cassis proposed finding a way to engage young people in the planning process. It thought it would be nice for their growth and would demonstrate good citizenship. Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth told Chair Cassis that there is a Youth Commission that meets at City Hall. She said that it was her recollection that City Council determined which of the boards would have a youth member. The Beautification Commission and Parks and Recreation each have one.

Chair Cassis said it was not his intent to have the students make judgments; rather, it would be more of a learning process.

Member Meyer noted that students do occasionally come to the meeting. He said that students from all the high schools that serve Novi should be considered. He said that they could offer a valuable perspective to the actual commission.

Member Wrobel thought that the Planning Commission was a bit more technical and he didn’t know if kids would be that interested. He thought perhaps college-age kids may find more benefit to such a program. Younger kids may just pretend to be interested to pad their resumes for college.

Member Burke suggested that perhaps the students could be involved at the Committee level. He noted that the student council does include Catholic Central. He also encouraged looking into how to invest in college students, perhaps offering internships.

Member Gutman supported the concept of engaging students of all ages in the planning process.

Chair Cassis asked Ms. McBeth to bring copies of the article Chair Cassis had read for the rest of the Planning Commission. Also, he asked that Ms. McBeth or Ms. Kapelanski go to the website and look for additional information on the subject. He asked that this to be an agenda item for the meeting. Judging from the reception the Master Plan process received in the community, he believes there is quite a bit of engagement relating to civic involvement. He wanted to ensure that the children of the community are afforded an opportunity to become engaged in the planning process as well.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Member Wrobel encouraged the newer Planning Commission members to consider attending the Michigan State Citizen Planner course.

Moved by Member Gutman,

The meeting adjourned at 8:53 PM.

MON 05/12/08 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 05/13/08 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:00 PM

WED 05/14/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 05/19/08 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 05/26/08 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

WED 05/28/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 06/09/08 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 06/10/08 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:00 PM

WED 06/11/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 06/23/08 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 06/25/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

Transcribed by Jane L. Schimpf, Signature on File

Customer Service Representative Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date

May 16, 2008

Date Approved: May 28, 2008