Present:  Members Brian Burke, Andrew Gutman, Brian Larson, Michael Lynch, Michael Meyer, Mark Pehrson, Wayne Wrobel

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

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Burke:

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 reported that City Council approved the RUD Amendment on Maybury Park Estates for the gated access and private roads. The revised Agreement will go back to City Council for final approval in the near future. City Council endorsed the Planning Commission’s request for Brian Burke to be named the Planning Commission Liaison to the ZBA.

The Michigan Planning Conference was discussed, and Ms. McBeth said there is money for some Planning Commission members to attend. There is also the opportunity to attend Citizen Planner training at this conference. Ms. McBeth encouraged anyone who wished to attend to let her know by August 29, 2008. The location is Kalamazoo and the dates are October 1-4, 2008.

There was no Consent Agenda.

The Public Hearing was held on the request of Sarnacki and Associates for Preliminary Site Plan, Woodland Permit and Stormwater Management Plan approval. The subject property is in Section 24, north of Ten Mile, west of Haggerty Road in the OS-1, Office Service District. The subject property is approximately 3.06 acres and the Applicant is proposing to construct a 9,924 square-foot one-story medical office building, and includes the location for a potential second building on the property with associated parking.

Planner Karen Reinowski described the project. The subject parcel and those to the north, south and east are zoned OS-1 and master planned for Office. Olde Orchard to the west is zoned RM-1 and master planned for Multiple Family Residential. There are dense woodlands on the southerly end of the site near the Francis Drain. There are wetlands in that area, but the building is proposed outside of the floodplain. There are no impacts to the wetlands or the buffer, although a City Minor Use Permit and an MDEQ Permit are required. The location of the proposed building is between the two courtyards of the adjacent condos. It is located as far as it can be from the outdoor space the adjacent residents would have in the rear of their units. The site plan shows where a second building may be located in the future, and is only a notation on the plan; its approval is not part of this request.

The Applicant indicates that two parking spaces will be added to their plan to meet the City standard. No variance request is necessary. The Applicant also responded that they will address the remaining outstanding issue on the next submittal.

The Landscape Review notes the buffer between this building and the westerly condos proposes a mixture of evergreens facing the condos. This will mature to provide great opacity. A 4’5" screen wall will be located behind the evergreens. A Planning Commission Waiver is required for this design rather than a berm. Staff supports this request, and suggests that the wall should be extended to the south so that it fills in the gap between the screen wall and the twelve-foot screen wall of the MRI unit. This design would provide a continuous wall. Additional shrubs and perennials are required and the Applicant has agreed to provide them.

The Woodland Review notes that 43 trees – 78 credits – will be impacted by this design. The Applicant needs to show where another eight credits will be provided, or indicate that they are paying into the tree fund. The Consultant recommends that the woodlands, wetlands and buffer be placed in a Conservation Easement. The Planning Commission may consider adding this stipulation to their motion.

The Engineering Review and Traffic Review also noted minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. The Façade Review and Fire Department Review do not have any outstanding issues.

Jay Sarnacki, project architect, addressed the Planning Commission. He introduced Dr. Pina Finazzo and said she was relocating from Livonia.

No one from the audience wished to speak. Member Gutman read the correspondence into the record:

• Miriam Berenstein, Olde Orchard: Approved of the request as long as the woodlands adjacent to her subdivision are maintained. She would have liked to have had her notice earlier.
• Barbara Sherwin, Olde Orchard: Approved of the request if it lowers her taxes, objected if it doesn’t.
• Anne Dombrowski, Olde Orchard: Approved of the request.
• Maryann Grausam, Olde Orchard: Approved of the request.
• Lillian Erdelyi, Olde Orchard: Approved of the request as no negative impacts seemed apparent.
• Susan Gatteri, Olde Orchard: Objected because of the medical vacancies throughout the City.
• Edward Fleck, Olde Orchard: Objected because of vacancies and overdevelopment issues. He did not wish to destroy more green space.
• Karen Brown, Olde Orchard: Objected to more buildings.
• Marily and James Trenkle, Olde Orchard: Objected because she didn’t want a business so close to residential. Had noise, woodland and Francis Drain concerns.
• Kristine Kurzatkowski, Olde Orchard: Objected because of concerns about more buildings and vacancies. She would have liked to have been noticed earlier. She is concerned about dropping property values.

Chair Pehrson closed the Public Hearing.

Member Wrobel asked what the distance was between this building and the residential condos. Ms. Reinowski replied that there is twenty feet between the parking lot and the lot line, and 37 feet between building and the property line. She said the condos are another ten to fifteen feet from their property line.

Member Wrobel asked about the hours of operation. Mr. Sarnacki said they would be standard, such as 8 AM to 6 PM Monday through Friday, perhaps some Saturday hours too. There would not be any Sunday hours. Dr. Finazzo would be housed in this building, so it wouldn’t be a vacant building. Member Wrobel asked what the pedestrian count might be. Mr. Sarnacki said that the work inside would be CT scans, radiology, MRIs, ultrasound, etc. There would be perhaps ten or fifteen appointments per hour. Member Wrobel didn’t want undue noise for the nearby residents. Member Wrobel didn’t see that this was a substantial problem, especially because the building wouldn’t be open for business in the evening. He supported the project.

Member Burke walked the property and noticed that there are condos that are about thirty feet from a chain-link fence and a gravel road, surrounded by vegetation. Member Burke asked how much of the vegetation would stay. Landscape Architect David Beschke responded that the building and parking area would be cleared out. The good thing about the Applicant’s proposal is the installation of a decorative wall that will screen fairly well. Also, forty evergreens and thirty deciduous trees are proposed for this stretch of land. In time the opacity will be very good.

Member Burke asked whether there would be additional sound interference for those condos that sit closer to this proposed building. Mr. Beschke couldn’t speak for the sound issue, but felt that the building is well-cited on this property. The north and south areas will remain untouched and the rest will receive higher quality landscape than what currently exists.

Civil Engineer Lindon Ivazaj added that though he didn’t review the proposal against the Sound Ordinance, he thought that the wall would be a sufficient sound barrier.

Member Burke asked for a brief education on MRI trailers. Mr. Sarnacki responded that he has designed a number of MRI ports, and the trailers do not emit a loud noise. There is a bit of clicking, but this is only during a procedure. The unit is a semi-trailer that sits in place and is shielded. Everything is self-contained. The trailers are made to be movable. There are no magnetic interferences with the surrounding areas. Dr. Finazzo added that she didn’t know the exact size of the MRI trailer. She said that this type of trailer operation doesn’t make hardly any noise. Her Trenton location is twenty feet away from the neighbor’s building, and they cannot hear the MRI trailer. The noise volume is low. The MRI scans last for 30 to 45 minute increments, and there are about ten patients per day. She thought the noise was minimal and she’s never had complaints at her other location. The MRI is attached to the building through a disconnect. Other than that, there are no other wires. Patients are wheeled directly into the unit. She said there is no external generator that would create additional noise.

Member Burke confirmed that the south drain is not affected by this proposal. Mr. Ivezaj said the flood plain is not encroached and there is proper detention on the site. There should not be any problems for the Francis Drain.

Member Burke confirmed that there weren’t any problems relating to the minor use permit or the MDEQ. Steve Sorensen from PEA Engineering responded that the MDEQ permit is purely for the tap to the drain. This is not a full-blown MDEQ permit, and working with them will take approximately two weeks.

Member Burke noted that there were many comments relating to vacancies throughout the City. He said that the Planning Commission is not charged with reviewing this plan against that information; they review the plans against the Ordinance and zoning requirements. The Applicant is not required to take over a vacant building and it’s not the Planning Commission’s purview to make sure that’s what they do. Regarding the noise issue, he understood the neighbors’ concerns, but based on what he’s heard, he doesn’t think the neighbors will be impacted by the noise on this site. Mr. Ivezaj replied that he is a civil engineer and not a sound engineer, so he could not take an emphatic position on the noise attenuation.

Member Burke asked what could be done to ensure that the sound levels are acceptable. Ms. Reinowski said the Zoning Ordinance does limit the decibel levels based on zoning and adjacent zoning. Ms. Reinowski suggested that the Applicant verify that they would not exceed the standards in the Ordinance. The screen wall makes Staff a bit more comfortable about the noise emission of this proposal, but the issue can certainly be quantified by the Applicant providing additional information on the MRI unit. Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth added that Staff’s request to continue the wall down to the screen wall for the MRI unit should be even more helpful.

Member Burke asked about the Conservation Easement. Ms. Reinowski said the recommendation was from the environmental consultant and is meant to ensure the preservation of the natural features. Mr. Sarnacki said he would work with the Staff to provide the easement. Member Burke was satisfied by the Applicant’s response letter wherein they state their intent to comply with the reviews. He thought that Staff and the Applicant did an admirable job in working this project out.

Moved by Member Burke, seconded by Member Gutman:

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Haggerty Partners for an amendment to the condominium plan. The subject property is located in Section 12 between Twelve Mile and Thirteen Mile, east of the M-5 Connector in the OST, Planned Office Service Technology District. The Applicant is proposing to modify the boundary between Unit 1 and Park A within Haggerty Corridor Corporate Park I, which would transfer approximately 1.03 acres from Park "A" to Unit 1.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Truss Development, LLC, for Preliminary Site Plan, Stormwater Management Plan and Wetland Permit approval. The subject property is located in Section 12 at the southeast corner of Thirteen Mile and the M-5 Connector in the OST, Planned Office Service Technology District. The subject property is approximately 4.61 acres and the Applicant is proposing to construct a 98-unit Hilton Homewood Suites on Unit 1 within the Haggerty Corridor Corporate Park I (HCCP I) condominium.

Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth explained that the Condominium Revision pertained to the addition of the Hilton Homewood Suites in the subject office park. Planner Karen Reinowski described both proposals at once.

Ms. Reinowski stated the park is zoned OST and is master planned for Office. There are wetlands in Park A, adjacent to Unit 1, and woodlands in other areas of the park. The original Condominium was approved in February 2004. This condominium proposal is to expand the area of Unit 1 by transferring 1.03 acres from Park A, which is currently a general common element. This would increase Unit 1’s size to accommodate the Hilton Homewood Suites. About one-third of this land transfer is a wetland. She displayed a plan that showed both the current and proposed boundaries of Unit 1.

Ms. Reinowski said this land transfer requires the Condominium deeds to be modified. Any outstanding issues from the discipline reviews and the City Attorney’s review would also need to be addressed. The Wetland Consultant noted that potential impacts to the wetland would have to be mitigated as part of Unit 1’s development. This has been included in the Hilton proposal. Only Planning and Wetland disciplines reviewed the Condominium modification.

Ms. Reinowski reiterated the zoning and natural features information for the area. She said the hotel was approximately 79,000 square feet. The Planning Commission approval of the Condominium modification is necessary to facilitate this hotel proposal. The new acreage of Unit 1 with the land transfer will be 4.61 acres, if approved. Additionally, the Planning Commission would also have to make a Finding that this hotel use is an integral part of the OST District in which this site resides, in order to meet the Ordinance standard. A marketing study was provided by the Applicant to substantiate their position.

Ms. Reinowski visited the site earlier in the day and noted that the site drops off significantly from M-5 down into the wetland areas. She noted that soil would have to be brought onto the site to balance off the grade.

Ms. Reinowski said the Applicant has indicated that a green space in the front of the hotel has been earmarked for a potential future use, though that use has not been identified at this time. She stated that the permitted uses on the site, other than an expansion of the actual hotel itself, may be limited within the OST District. For example, retail and restaurant uses are not permitted. The site plan only proposes twelve additional spaces over the minimum parking standard, which also may limit the Applicant’s options for an additional use on the site. The Applicant should also verify that the loading area can properly accommodate truck turning movements. The Applicant has responded that their deliveries won’t really come from semis, rather from FedEx-sized trucks.

The Landscape Review, Traffic Review and Engineering Review all note minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. The Wetland Review indicates that a both City [non-] Minor Use Wetland Permit and an MDEQ Permit are required, as well as a Natural Features Setback Authorization. The MDEQ Permit for 0.32 acres of impact was issued to the Applicant in June. The Applicant is requesting a Section Nine Façade Waiver, which would permit a maximum a 28% asphalt shingles for the east façade. That exceeds the 25% standard found in the Ordinance. The Façade Consultant supports the request. The Fire Department Review did not indicate he had any issues with the proposal.

Matt Sosin of Northern Equities addressed the Planning Commission. As the owner of the coprorate park, he is very excited to welcome this hotel amenity, as are his tenants. He said that national brokers routinely ask him about adding a hotel to this park.

No one from the audience wished to speak and no correspondence was received so Chair Pehrson closed both Public Hearings.

Member Meyer reviewed the letter from Beth Kudla, one of the City’s Attorneys, who wrote that the preservation of the upland areas and the wetlands was a condition for the approval for the park, the condominium and Cabot South Technology Center.

Mr. Sosin said he disagreed with the statements made in the letter. He said that previously, the Planning Commission was only concerned about the preservation area between what is now Cabot South and the Mercantile Bank building. That was the only area Mr. Sosin agreed to preserve. He said that land is not buildable anyway, and the land is of no value to anyone except as an area of conservation. He maintained that he never agreed to place an easement on any other portion of the park, including the area surrounding the unit under discussion. All that he agreed to was that if one day in the future he was developing one of the units in the condo and the site contained woodlands and wetlands, he would seek permits to accomplish his proposal. He thought the problem was with semantics and he thought the Master Deed could have probably been better crafted. His intention was only to place the conservation easement between Cabot South and Mercantile Bank (FKA Siemens) building. He said this could be substantiated in the minutes from 2004 and 2005. That easement has been crafted and he continues to honor the terms of that document.

Mr. Sosin said the enhancement to the wetland can be addressed by the hotel’s Applicant. Member Meyer asked for specifics on the wetland portion of the project. Mr. Sosin stated that his request only seeks for the lot boundaries to change; the hotel Applicant is seeking the wetland permit to fill in wetlands and mitigate this impact elsewhere. Member Meyer wanted to ensure that the wetlands would indeed be mitigated. Member Meyer reread the statement from Ms. Kudla’s letter describing the conservation area condition that was part of a previous approval, and Mr. Sosin responded that the sentence to which Member Meyer was referring was in fact the one with which he did not agree. He said it was a blanket statement. Mr. Sosin did agree that any development, regardless of whether it is or is not in a condominium, would need to seek the appropriate City-issued or State-issued permits for any impacts to the natural features.

Member Meyer welcomed the efforts that Northern Equities is putting forth in the park. He added that it complements the hospital going in at Fifteen Mile. He only hoped that everyone plays by the rules.

Member Burke did not have an issue with redefining the lot lines. He asked about the proximity of the Hampton Inn. Mr. Jason Sutton, the engineer for the hotel, responded that it is north of Fourteen Mile and east of M-5. Mr. Sutton explained that the Hampton is a traditional hotel, whereas this Hilton offers suite-type accommodations with kitchenettes for extended-stay patrons. It will be located within the park and will therefore better serve its tenants. Member Burke noted that the two-year old Hampton averages about 70% occupancy and asked what the national or regional average is for such a hotel. Mr. Basil Bakal, the Applicant for the hotel, responded that the Commerce Hampton offers a limited service that caters to the corporate client. He introduced Valerie Reese, the general manager of the Hampton and this proposed hotel. The Homewood Suites caters to the extended-stay patrons, such as those who come for training and their stays last for several weeks. The Hampton Inn staff has determined there is a need for extended stay. Ms. Reese said the Hampton assumes a 30-40% increase in their occupancy once the inpatient facility opens at the hospital. She said many of these guests will also be looking for a suite-style room with a kitchen. She said that many of the high profile companies in this office park, such as Elgin, require amenities to accommodate their travelers, who come from as far away as Japan. Their stays are usually two or three weeks at a time, and these guests don’t want to eat out their entire stay.

Mr. Bakal said that they sometimes turn away twenty or thirty people whom they cannot currently accommodate. He said that the current 70% occupancy rate is very respectable given the economy. Member Burke confirmed that the Hampton sells out Monday through Wednesday. He asked whether this Hilton will negatively affect the Hampton business. Mr. Bakal replied that the two hotels are not direct competitors because their products are different. His hope is to attract other business that is looking for this style of hotel. He hired a consultant who performed a feasibility study, the result of which supports the addition of this style of hotel.

Member Burke summarized that Mr. Bakal’s position was that the Hampton would maintain its current occupancy level even after the Hilton is built. Mr. Bakal concurred, stating that the Hilton will not negatively affect his Hampton, and it will actually strengthen the corridor, bringing more travelers to the region. Member Burke just wanted to ensure that the Hilton would not hamper the Hampton. Ms. Reese ensured Member Burke that they turn people away because of their sell-out days. She was not concerned that the Hampton would suffer. Mr. Bakal said he wanted to be sure too, which is why he contracted for a feasibility study.

Member Wrobel asked the Wetland Consultant to comment. Dr. Don Tilton, Wetland Consultant, explained that the plan is recommended for approval because the mitigation more than adequately replaces the functions and values of the existing wetland. The current wetland is dominated by reed canary grass which is an invasive species, which limits its usefulness as a wildlife habitat. This wetland provides functions in terms of hydrology and water quality protection because of its relationship to the wetland system that flows to the south and also in a northeasterly direction. The new wetland that is proposed is going to have a more significant value in terms of waterlife, water quality and stormwater storage. It will become part of the larger wetland complex, i.e., it is not isolated from the system by a parking lot, and it is integrated into the ecological landscape so that species that inhabit the area can easily move in and out of the wetland. The new wetland will be far more conducive to an amphibian population, e.g., frogs and toads, and in turn, more activity with wading birds searching for tadpoles will be realized. The wetland proposed to be filled does not currently function in this way. In balance, the City is getting a larger wetland and a more valuable wetland. His firm recommends approval of the proposal.

Member Wrobel asked whether Novi had a standard for fill dirt that is hauled into the City. Civil Engineer Lindon Ivezaj said the standard requires that the dirt must be able to sustain the weight of the building. The compaction is the most important element of the fill. The Applicant’s geotechnical engineer will be required to provide the specifications of their dirt. Member Wrobel wanted to ensure that the fill brought in wouldn’t glow in the dark.

Member Lynch supported the project, especially after hearing Dr. Tilton’s clarification of the wetland proposal. He appreciated the support of the hotel from the local community. He understood the value of offering both traditional and suite-style rooms in proximity of each other. He thought the location near the corporate park was strategically sound. He hoped the economy maintained both of these hotels so that one wouldn’t cannibalize the other. He assumed Mr. Bakal has analyzed the situation and performed due diligence prior to reaching his decision. He had no concerns about the proposal and supported the project.

Member Gutman was further assured by the comments made by Dr. Tilton. Member Gutman said the Planning Commission’s obligation to find this hotel is an integral part of the OST District was satisfied by the discussion of the Applicant’s Marketing Plan. He saw this proposal as a response to the growth in this area, particularly the hospital and the completion of this corporate park.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Chair Pehrson asked City Attorney Kristin Kolb whether she was satisfied that the items in her office’s letter were addressed. Ms. Kolb responded that reference to the July 31, 2008 letter in the motion was satisfactory and addressed her primary concern. She will continue to work with Staff and Mr. Sosin to ensure the issues are tied up prior to moving forward.

Ms. Kolb asked Chair Pehrson to ensure the existence of the Hilton Public Hearing by seeking comment from the audience. No one from the audience wished to speak and no correspondence was received so Chair Pehrson again closed the Public Hearing.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Wrobel:

2. SET A PUBLIC HEARING FOR AUGUST 27, 2008 FOR ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT 18.230 RELATING TO REMOVING THE AREA OF OFFICE BASEMENTS AND MEZZANINES LIMITED TO STORAGE ONLY FROM THE "DEFINITIONS" SECTION FOR GROSS LEASEABLE FLOOR AREA

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Burke:

There were no Consent Agenda removals.

There were no Matters for Discussion.

Member Wrobel asked how Novi was fortunate enough to get two new MRI units, referring to Contemporary Imaging Associates and the Premiere Center. The State does approve locations for MRI placement. Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth said that MRI units are in demand and the onus is on the doctor to prove there is a demand for a permanent unit at their facility. These MRI trailers travel around and are not always at one office.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Moved by Member Burke,

The meeting adjourned at 8:19 PM.

MON 08/25/08 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 08/27/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 09/01/08 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

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

TUE 09/09/08 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:00 PM

WED 09/10/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 09/22/08 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 09/24/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

Transcribed by Jane L. Schimpf, August 22, 2008 Signature on File

Customer Service Representative Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date

Date Approved: August 27, 2008