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

Present:  Members Brian Burke, Victor Cassis, David Greco, Andrew Gutman, Brian Larson, Michael Meyer, Mark Pehrson, Wayne Wrobel

Absent: Member Michael Lynch (excused)

Also Present:  Barbara McBeth, Deputy Director of Community Development; Kristen Kapelanski, Planner; David Beschke, Landscape Architect; Lindon Ivezaj, Civil Engineer; Martha Holzheuer, Woodland Consultant; John Freeland, Wetland Consultant; Doug Necci, Façade Consultant; Steve Dearing, Traffic Consultant; Kristin Kolb, City Attorney

The meeting attendees recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

Moved by Member Wrobel, seconded by Member Gutman:

Chair Pehrson opened the floor for public comment:

Chair Pehrson closed the audience participation.

Chair Pehrson asked Member Gutman to read the correspondence into the record:

Member Gutman read the correspondence objecting to the project:

There were no Committee Reports.

Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth said that City Council approved the Maple Manor request and the Applicant has been instructed to work with the City on the PRO Agreement. The second readings of the film industry text amendments were both approved.

Moved by Member Wrobel, seconded by Member Gutman:

Planner Kristen Kapelanski explained that the Preliminary Site Plan, Woodland Permit and Stormwater Management Plan were previously approved on June 25, 2008. It was determined on the Final Site Plan submittal that a non-minor use Wetland Permit was necessary and it requires Planning Commission approval. Ms. Kapelanski offered to answer any questions.

Chair Pehrson asked Member Gutman to read the correspondence.

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

Moved by Member Meyer, seconded by Member Burke:

Member Cassis asked about the Basilian Fathers’ entrance onto Taft Road. He thought the entrance was very close to Ms. Ban’s driveway, as was the proposed entrance for the Sri Venkateswara Temple. Civil Engineer Lindon Ivezaj responded that the subject project was considered a Single Family Residential use, so the distances between the drives were considered far enough apart that no disturbance would occur.

Traffic Consultant Steve Dearing added that the project’s impact was deemed too small to warrant a formal traffic impact study. However, he did evaluate the proximity of the driveways to the intersection. This is currently a four-way stop but it is a logical candidate for a traffic signal at some point in time. Access management guidelines provided by the MDOT suggest that both driveways were removed far enough from the intersection that they would not pose an access management concern.

Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth stated that the subject project last appeared before the Planning Commission on September 24^th for a Public Hearing. The Planning Commission postponed consideration of the request to allow the Applicant additional time to address the concerns of the Planning Commission and consider alternatives. Staff held a meeting and had a number of conversations with the Applicant since that time, and the plans have now been revised and resubmitted for further consideration by the Planning Commission.

The subject property is zoned RA and master planned for Single Family Residential. The westerly property is zoned RA and master planned for Single Family Residential. To the north is land zoned OST and Single Family Residential, and master planned for Light Industrial and Single Family Residential. To the south is land zoned Single Family Residential. To the east is land zoned Light Industrial and Single Family Residential. There are wetlands in the front and rear of the property. There are dense woodlands on the rear half of the site.

Phase 1 consists of a 6,693 square-foot, two-story temporary Temple/Priest Residence. Phase 2 is approximately 22,693 square foot, two-story Temple – the same size as previously proposed. Phase 3 is approximately 21,823 square-foot two-story Cultural Center without a basement - previously it was proposed as a 31,833 square-foot one-story building with a basement.

Among the changes made to the plans are the following:

The RA District permits places of worship and other facilities normally incidental thereto as a Special Land Use. During the initial Planning Review, the position was taken that the Priest Residence/Temporary Temple and the Cultural Center were "accessory to" the Temple. Based on further information revealed at the Public Hearing regarding the intended uses within the buildings and on further discussion with Staff and the city attorney’s office, the Planning Division’s position is that the Priest Residence/Temporary Temple and the Cultural Center are "normally incidental" to the Temple use of the property as the Ordinance allows. Many religious institutions provide housing, such as a parsonage or rectory for leaders or caretakers. Often, religious institutions provide space in a basement, gymnasium or other multiple-purpose areas for a variety of social and cultural activities. If the interpretation that housing and social/cultural space is normally incidental to the primary use as a Temple is applied, several variances from Zoning Ordinance standards are eliminated from consideration as indicated in the review letter, e.g., variances for accessory structures in front yard, total area of accessory uses, and provisions for parking in the front yard.

The Planning Review continues to recommend approval, with a number of Variances that must first be sought from the ZBA. The Temple itself meets the height standard of 35 feet, but seven decorative elements and the mechanical equipment screening require Variances. The decorative element Variances are for:

The Zoning Ordinance states that church spires are not required to meet the height standard and it is Staff’s opinion that these elements could be considered the equivalent of a spire on a church. However, Special Land Use requests, which include the Temple and therefore these spires, may be subject to a height limitation as determined by the ZBA. The final height Variance for the proposed 42 feet of building height is requested for the mechanical equipment screening; 35 feet is the limit.

The dumpster near the Cultural Center is located nearer to Taft Road and requires a variance to address the location in the side yard setback. Staff continues to recommend that the dumpster be moved to a location further from the adjacent home.

The potential parking demands on the site were analyzed. The Planning Review revealed the following regarding Phase 1 and 2 together based on the rationale that the two main areas of assembly in the Temple building are the Multi-Purpose Room on the first floor and the Prayer Hall on the second floor. Neither room has fixed seats, but several assumptions were made in the Staff report to arrive at the requirement for a total of 306 parking spaces based on occupancy of both the Prayer Hall and the Multi-Purpose Room. If the Planning Commission makes both a finding and a condition of approval that the Prayer Hall and multi-purpose space may be occupied simultaneously, and that parking may be based on the only on occupancy of these areas of use, a Zoning Board of Appeals variance would be necessary for a deficiency of 49 spaces (308 parking spaces required for Phases 1 and 2, and only 259 parking spaces are proposed with these two phases).

The Planning Division prepared the following calculations for the Cultural Center based on additional information provided for the occupancy in the main conference area on the first floor of the building and the classrooms and offices on the second floor of the building. The main conference room would need approximately 150 parking spaces and the classrooms need an additional 89 parking spaces, for a total of 239 parking spaces required if both rooms are occupied at the same time.

If the Planning Commission accepts the representation by the Applicant that major events at the Temple and events at the Cultural Center will not occur at the same time, Staff suggests that the Planning Commission may approve the Special Land Use and Preliminary Site Plan with a Finding that the parking for the more intense use (Temple) would be required to be provided on site, subject to the Zoning Board of Appeals variance of 34 parking spaces (308 spaces required, 274 total spaces proposed). The Applicant is asked to verify the statement that the Cultural Center will not be used when major events at the Temple are taking place and this statement would need to be indicated as a specific condition of approval of the Preliminary Site Plan and Special Land Use approvals and subject to the standards of the Zoning Ordinance under the Special Land Use criteria and will be enforceable on the property in the future.

Several other options were presented in those reports and can be discussed later if the Planning Commission chooses to do so. The noise impact statement indicates that there are no outdoor activities or loudspeakers. The study was found to be acceptable.

The Wetland Review continues to recommend approval and notes that the plan requires a City of Novi Non-Minor Use Permit, a Natural Features Setback Authorization and an MDEQ Wetland Permit. The Woodland Review does not recommend approval, although reduced impact to the woodlands has been accomplished with the proposed plan. The Applicant has agreed to place a Conservation Easement on the remaining natural features.

The Landscape Review recommends approval; however, based on the current plan, a Planning Commission Waiver is requested for the berm along the north, south and western lot lines. The berm would compromise the existing native vegetation, slopes and wetlands. An additional Waiver noted in the review letter, but overlooked on the cover sheet, was the Planning Commission Waiver for the required four-foot tall berm within the greenbelt along the Taft Road right-of-way. Staff supports these Planning Commission Waivers if the Planning Commission is inclined to approve the Special Land Use and Preliminary Site Plan.

The Traffic Review continues to recommend approval of the Preliminary Site Plan, traffic study and shared parking study. The Engineering Review continues to recommend approval contingent on the Applicant extending the watermain north to Grand River in order to loop the system to provide appropriate fire flow.

The Façade Review on the residence shows that the Applicant has made some modification to the design pursuant to the previous comments but there are still questions regarding details, materials and colors of materials that are proposed. The Applicant and Consultant will need to continue discussions on these questions.

The Temple requires two Section Nine Waivers for the materials (glass fiber reinforced concrete and pre-glazed block), and are recommended by the Consultant. In order to provide a traditional Temple, the glass fiber reinforced concrete is the only material suitable to Michigan’s environment and it provides the ability for carving, while being practical from a cost perspective. The pre-glazed block is consistent with the other proposed materials and colors. The Temple is deficient on brick, but if the background walls are provided in brick, it would then meet the standard. Otherwise, a third Section Nine Waiver would be required and is not recommended by the Consultant at this time. The Cultural Center meets the Façade Ordinance standards.

The Fire Department Review did not indicate any outstanding issues related to the site. Most reviews had other minor issues to be addressed on the Final Site Plan, if the Commission is inclined to approve the Preliminary Site Plan. Ms. McBeth offered to answer any questions.

Anand Gangadharan addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of the Applicant. He thanked the Planning Commission for taking their time to visit to temples and making the effort to understand this project. Much like the concerns expressed, he said that the members of the Sri Venkateswara Temple wish to be good neighbors. They have addressed the comments made by the residents. He said they will ensure that parking needs are addressed.

Mr. Anand highlighted the changes made to the plan. They have moved the one building forward sixty feet (to the east). This will preserve more trees – now they are saving 116 trees, an increase of 24. They have decreased the Cultural Center by about 33%. Mr. Praveen Manyam listed the changes. The priest residence has been moved away from the westerly boundary, further preserving the natural features. The Temple has been moved further east, which also increases the natural feature preservation. The Cultural Center was reduced in size by reducing every program space. A berm wall has been added to the southerly property line, and was pushed back to allow more natural planting and screening. Rain gardens and sidewalks have been moved to increase the planting buffer and provide more screening along the northerly boundary. The light poles have been reduced in height. The development was pulled inward to increase wetlands and woodlands and the Conservation Easement. The proportion of the buildings was changed.

Mr. Anand addressed the parking concerns. The proposal consists of three buildings that are germane to the practice of their faith. Congregants will come to the prayer hall, which is 2,880 square feet. Prayers are an open format, and it does require a certain amount of personal space. People are welcome to walk around, sit, spread their arms or lie prostrate before the deity. Conservatively, he considered that one person per five square feet in the prayer hall yielded space for 560 people. He did not expect to pack that many people into the hall. That number would require 186 parking spaces for the Temple. The multi-purpose room is 6,750 square feet with a maximum occupancy of 450, which yields 150 parking spaces. In total, the need for parking is 336. Currently the plans propose 272, so the delta is 65 parking spaces. They have no intentions of scheduling events for both buildings to the extent that parking would become an issue.

Mr. Anand has a letter of intent from Miracle Software that offers use of their parking lot for the overflow Temple parking. The public school system also has interest in helping the Sri Venkateswara Temple achieve parking availability. At the present time, the amount of parking is reasonable.

There is room on the site to place more parking but it would require removing more trees. They have no interest in doing so. This Temple will grow over a period of time.

Mr. Anand reiterated that the Cultural Center is integral to the Temple. This is the general structure of the Hindu worship site, though the term may occasionally change from "Cultural Center." This Hindu community in Michigan is settling down and it wants to provide the same experience to their children as they once had.

Mr. Anand said they will be bringing water from Grand River, and this will be of benefit to the other residents. Also, this Temple will lead to increased economic activity in Novi. He has met with Rock Financial, and he believes that the Temple could provide business for the showplace in the future.

Mr. Bryan Amann, attorney for the Applicant, addressed the Planning Commission. He emphasized the sameness of this Cultural Center to the halls and gymnasiums of the protestant and Catholic churches. The buildings have been separated in part by the locations of the wetlands on site. The use of the Cultural Center is integral to the Temple. He has heard the comments made about the other temples; he is the attorney for those temples as well. The comparisons made at this meeting were interesting, but Mr. Amann didn’t think they were material to the Planning Commission’s determination, other than the Troy Temple as it relates to the parking calculation issue. He felt the City’s Traffic Consultant understood the parking calculations as a reflection of space needed to pray, for instance, in a prostrate position. The other temples cited are sometimes just fifty feet from adjacent homes, 25 feet from the property lines, and others are 30,000 square feet in size and sitting on just five or seven acres. He felt it was dangerous to compare these factors, other than the parking calculation.

Mr. Amann said what the Planning Commission should consider is how this proposal is consistent with the Ordinance requirements. There are some concerns, but the written Ordinance and this project are consistent. Approving this project is consistent with the City’s past practices in applying these standards to these types of projects. These are the considerations that are relevant under Michigan law. RLUIPA laws obviously apply to this project as it does to places of worship across the country, and any case can be picked out to review – on both district and circuit court levels. He knew that the Planning Commission would do its job in applying the Ordinances consistently.

Mr. Anand offered to answer any questions. He reiterated that they will sign a Conservation Easement of over three acres. This should further satisfy the Andes Hills residents.

Member Burke felt the issues that remained with the Planning Commission were with the Cultural Center. He understood the Staff and City Attorney that the Cultural Center was incidental to the Temple. Mr. Amann explained that it will provide the same kind of social functions that occur as part of any other religious experience to the extent there may be marriages, wakes, events or educational activity. Mr. Anand said that fundamentally, it will provide the necessary accoutrements – lamps, stages, etc., and this is currently not available to these members. Because there are so many ways a Hindu might worship, the Sri Venkateswara Temple wishes to have as many of these accoutrements available for use. Children may learn dancing that requires, for example, certain instruments. A religious leader may also come in to lecture, which may not mean he will stand behind a lectern – there may be mats instead. There are no daycare facilities planned for the site. There will be classrooms that function similar to Sunday school.

Member Burke asked about the dumpster. Mr. Anand responded that he thought the request made by Staff to move it away from the neighbor could be accommodated.

Member Burke asked about the timeline. Mr. Anand replied that Phases 1 and 2 will start as soon as possible. Phase 3 will happen after Phase 2 is complete and things are settled a bit. Likely, this will be in a few years.

Member Burke referred to the quasi-letter of agreement for parking on the Miracle Software site. Mr. Anand said that they were granted approval to use as much of their parking space as needed. A van will be used to shuttle the members back to the Temple. The vans will be housed at the rear of the lot.

Member Wrobel said this is not a religious issue, the City welcomes this Temple. He wished to discuss with the Traffic Consultant the worst case scenarios for Taft Road traffic and parking. Mr. Stephen Dearing responded that the traffic study was not modified with the revision of plans just received. The thought was insofar as the Cultural Center space was being reduced by a substantial amount, there was no reason to regenerate all of the capacity calculations.

Mr. Dearing said the weekday peak periods are the commute times. The weekends that coincide with worship times are not changing. No impacts from this use are anticipated during peak commute times or weekend peak times. He recognized that the Taft Road/Eleven Mile intersection was a point of concern for the area, but this will be resolved when the corner is signalized. The need is going to be driven by factors other than whether this property develops or not. Mr. Dearing didn’t see any significant traffic issues with this project. Member Wrobel asked about a major Hindu festival, and this Temple’s need to use off-site parking. He felt that if several people entered the site on those busy days and had to leave because there were no parking spaces, this would create a traffic problem, given the size of the road.

Mr. Dearing said the high-intense uses do not coincide with the peak commute times when the road is otherwise burdened with a lot of other traffic. Any faith-based community has its high holidays. This Temple’s celebrations, like Mr. Dearing’s own church at Easter, will have additional traffic within a short intense peak of time. The burden of addressing the congestion is borne by the Temple. He reiterated that these Hindu celebrations will be held at a time when the roads are not otherwise strained. This gets back to a fundamental question of whether the site should be designed for the absolute peak – this is normally not done because it is wasteful. Generally, the idea is to put up with the handful of hours throughout the year when there are congestive conditions. Though he didn’t know specifically how many high holy-days the Hindus would celebrate, he surmised it resulted in a tiny fraction of time that does not coincide with morning or evening commutes.

Member Wrobel asked whether parking could occur along Taft Road. Ms. McBeth responded that it is generally not an acceptable thing to park along the side of Taft Road. She said she could check with the police to see if they have any regulations against doing so. If it is signed "No parking at any time" then the police could ticket and tow if they need to. Member Wrobel thought it would be good to look into this to relieve any future potential problems.

Member Wrobel asked about the parking. Mr. Dearing said the Applicant did not modify their parking information with the revision. What Mr. Dearing reviewed closely was the method used with the original analysis. Troy was used as the base point, and the ebbs and flows of the parking demand were reviewed over an entire week. The study tried to identify what the maximum parking onsite was. It became obvious that parking was not temple-based so much as it was Cultural Center-based. The traffic study indicated their maximum parking number was 182 vehicles. The size of the Troy meeting hall is different from the original Sri Venkateswara Temple proposal.

Originally, this proposal had a Cultural Center 45% larger than the Troy center. Therefore, the maximum parking demand of 182 was scaled up by 45%. Having done that, the study also added an additional 5% to cushion the parking number. This resulted in 277 parking spaces. The proposal is down by five parking stalls, and the Cultural Center has been reduced by about 30%. All of this space didn’t come from the meeting hall, but it was one of the program areas that was reduced. Mr. Dearing felt that the method of determining parking requirements made sense to him. It appeared to be a productive way of using a comparable site and applying it to the specific conditions in Novi. As the Applicant has indicated, it doesn’t do them any good to build in a chronic inadequacy at their facility. Mr. Dearing tends to trust their judgment if a lot of money is being put on the line – they certainly don’t want to cripple themselves with inadequate parking. There are limited opportunities to squeeze more parking onsite, but it would be at the expense of the natural features. Mr. Dearing reiterated that the approach to the traffic study was done in what he considered a logical manner.

Member Wrobel asked Façade Consultant Doug Necci about the Temple façade. Mr. Necci replied that the material proposed is glass reinforced concrete panels, which is apropos for this application. The Temple façade will not be entirely carved, but the end result will be ornate. This material can be molded and provide for shaping. He definitely recommended the Waiver for this project, given the fact that it is the only practical material. He did have an issue with the priests’ residence, mostly because the Applicant’s efforts were more on the Temple and they haven’t addressed some of the issues raised in the reviews. They need to show all of the finite details of the building.

Member Meyer thanked the public for their input. He thanked the Applicant for reaching out to the school system and Rock Financial, and their efforts of working with the neighbors. Member Meyer thought generally the consideration of this plan has progressed without incident. With the City coming of age, land is going to be developed and amenities like quiet and peacefulness may be displaced, but this project hopes to return these amenities in a spiritual manner.

Member Meyer thought that the Applicant had really taken the Planning Commission’s comments to heart, and he thought the reduction in the Cultural Center size was admirable. He was concerned though, was that events would unfold onsite that are not related to the Temple but were profit-making in nature.

Member Meyer asked about the tree replacement. Landscape Architect David Beschke responded that the Applicant has accounted for the removed trees. His role is to review the landscape and the Woodland Consultant can speak about the woodland replacements. The Landscape Ordinance has been met with this design and the Applicant has done his best to replace as many replacements as possible. Some variances are being requested, but Mr. Beschke thought they were simple requests.

Woodland Consultant Martha Holzheuer addressed the Planning Commission. The current plan proposes the removal of 148 trees of which 75 replacements will go back on site. The 191 credits remaining will go into the tree fund. This is an impact of 56% of the regulated trees onsite, similar to the previous plan proposed. Member Meyer said the concern for the natural habitat is not touchy-feely but sensitive and compassionate awareness.

Member Greco commended the public for their passion on this project. This is a growing community and new development is going to happen. He was not at the Public Hearing but he read the materials relating to it. He thought the Applicant has shown great care in addressing the concerns of the community and the Planning Commission. A broader picture of the area includes Rock Financial, a park, schools, etc. Will this project add to the area? Yes it will, but is it different from the area, on what is being proposed? He didn’t think so. There is a church on the corner. This proposal is not out of character for what is generally going on in the area. He thought the Traffic Consultant addressed the congestion appropriately by noting that one can’t plan for the worst case but for the normal scenario. Member Greco commented that his home is interior to two football fields and sometimes there are cars parked everywhere and the bands can be heard. This noise and congestion is sometimes what defines a community. These issues are incidental to being a community. Sometimes the residents crowd each other a little bit, but being accepting of these goings-on makes a community. With the concessions and commitments made by the Applicant and the recommendations made by the Staff, he felt he had gained somewhat of an understanding of a religion with which he is not too familiar. He did not think there would be Temple and Cultural Center events being scheduled at the same time. Member Greco suggested that if one looked at his own faith, he wouldn’t find a wedding or dance recital occurring during Easter Sunday mass. He felt that if the Applicant was willing to make these commitments, he was able to go along with the proposal.

Member Gutman felt the Applicant has done a great job trying to address the concerns voiced at the last meeting. He felt this concept was new to many in the community. The Applicant extended an offer to the Planning Commission to visit the Troy Temple. Member Gutman took advantage of the opportunity and he viewed the Troy Temple on a Saturday. He found that the traffic during what is supposed to be one their busiest times was steady but never more than half of the parking lot. The Troy site is a much harder site to develop. He clarified the comment that the Troy Temple is not fully developed; there is some new development but the existing development is 24,000 square feet. There was activity going on but there were no traffic issues. The building aspects were explained to him so he understood them to be indicative of the culture. He thought the community should be respectful of the culture, as much as it would be for a temple or something of that sort in a different religion. Some heights are used for the Temple’s purpose, and Member Gutman thought that was okay, as long as it is respectful of the neighbors. Member Gutman thought the Applicant went far out of his way to accommodate the concerns. Reducing the Cultural Center by one-third is significant. Increasing the setbacks is significant. Their willingness was shown this evening by the Applicant’s willingness to relocate the trash receptacle. This is nice to see. The light poles have been reduced from 25 feet to twenty feet. This is another modification intended to accommodate the concerns of the citizens.

Member Gutman did not think the Traffic Consultant gave the Planning Commission any reason to believe this Temple will cause significant traffic impacts beyond what is normal. The Façade Consultant indicates the building materials are appropriate. Member Gutman thanked the Applicant for trying to remove some of the fears of the community and accommodating them. This will be a nice development and will be an architectural gem of the community. He supported the Applicant in his pursuit.

Member Larson asked if the Cultural Center was open to the general public. Mr. Anand said that at the present time he didn’t believe so. It is meant for the internal use of the members. It would not be rented out for parties and the like. The building would be rentable to those who want to use it for cultural and religious activities. He said there will be a procedure that would be upheld by a Temple manager. Conditions will be put in place. There will be about four years for them to determine how to design this procedure. Member Larson concluded that the Cultural Center’s use will be by the members and not the general public.

Member Cassis asked about the wetlands. Dr. John Freeland, the City’s Wetland Consultant, said the impacts to the wetlands are about two-tenths of an acre. The wetland slated for fill is not in the woodland. The wetlands are out in open areas. They are of modest wetland quality with a number invasive species. He would not consider them high-quality wetlands. The Applicant is mitigating for the impacts, so at the end of the project there will be approximately .35 acres of wetland to compensate for the impacts. The big issue regarding natural resources on this site is the woodlands. The wetland mitigation plan is reasonable and meets the requirements of the Ordinance. Dr. Freeland said the wetlands are MDEQ and City regulated but the impacts are being mitigated. The Applicant is also proposing some rain garden facilities that help compensate for the proposed wetland permits. Member Cassis confirmed that the Woodland Consultant gave a negative recommendation.

Member Cassis said this decision is agonizing for him. It is very difficult for him. He wholeheartedly and enthusiastically welcomed the building of an Indian Temple in this City. It is a beautifully-architected, majestic house of worship that Novi will be honored to have to satisfy the spiritual needs of one of the most respected members of the community. He supported the Temple request if the building were properly placed on the property. However, due to the intensity and overbuilding of the third phase, he had reservations and would not support the application as presented. The placing of over 50,000 square feet on this property, with its sensitive character, is disproportionate and will cause undue hardship on the area and the residents surrounding it, and thus it has eleven variances facing it.

Member Cassis commended the Applicant for scaling down the Cultural Center. He said the City always embraces and celebrates cooperation. His concerns were the following. There is a shortage of 34 parking spaces – he heard how the Applicant addressed this and he said it was commendable that they came up with a solution. MDEQ-regulated wetlands are being filled in. The Woodland Consultant did not recommend approval of the plan. His regret was that the traffic study was, in his opinion, lacking and wanting in any detail as to how the Applicant’s report would fit and apply to this particular site – with a two-lane residential street and two stop signs within a block, two schools, church and the Basilian Fathers project with a Taft Road entrance within 150 feet. Traffic was his main concern, not so much the parking.

Member Cassis wanted to make a suggestion. He said the comment was made about ancillary uses. There are two or more lawyers in the room; he said they could choose their own weapon, whatever that would be. This proposal is for three uses. He respected that there will be festivals. He told the Traffic Consultant that the Planning Commission had a list of how many festivals there would be – quite a few of them. Member Cassis suggested that the Applicant celebrate all the things they want to celebrate. He didn’t think 21,000 square feet was necessary. He suggested that the Applicant accept a Cultural Center in the size range of 14,000-15,000 square feet, because he thought would help minimize many of the variances. It might protect the wetlands and woodlands. It would be more in tune with the small street that has residences on it and so many people traversing on it. Four hundred people leaving this site at once is going to put some inconveniences on the residents in the area. He wanted to apply the relevant Ordinances consistently on this project, as the Applicant’s attorney suggested, just as those projects that came before this one and the ones that will come forward in the future.

Chair Pehrson thanked the Applicant for all the work he has done and the spirit with which he did so. The Applicant took the Planning Commission’s suggestions to heart. Chair Pehrson visited the Troy Temple to get a sense and feel for this project. His concern was purely about the intense use that is going to be placed on the property, not the type of use. The Applicant has met the standards within the Ordinance because a religious building can be built in a residential area. The Planning Commission has to make the Special Land Use determination as to whether this project fits, given the criteria that is before it. Chair Pehrson agreed with Member Greco regarding his comments about community. Community is important, as is evidenced by the audience at the meeting. The Applicant’s desire to build a Temple here has been met with open arms. There are concerns about the intensive use of the site. He appreciated the Applicant offering that the Temple and Cultural Center would not be used concurrently, and he would require that language in any approving motion.

Chair Pehrson said that this Temple is going to prosper. The missing information for the Planning Commission is how many parking spaces will this use be deficient? This Temple will be flooded with good luck and good fortune, and people are going to want to come to this destination. This is going to become a part of the community at large. People will want to experience this, whether they are of the Hindu faith or not. Chair Pehrson is not convinced he knows what this parking deficiency is, nor does he think the offset parking is resolved from the standpoint that when Phase 3 is built, the Applicant is going to have to add parking to the north side of the site. Perhaps the Applicant has a long term plan to purchase more land for parking. Chair Pehrson said these assessments were being made against the standards found in the City’s Ordinance.

Chair Pehrson said these items have to be reviewed for the Special Land Use. The Planning Commission routinely takes suggestions that will make the best of a situation from the Consultants. The tree fund satisfies those instances where the Applicant does not have enough space on his site to replant the woodlands. This is a mechanism that augments the woodlands in the City. The City tries to respect the land that is here, knowing that this community is going to grow into something that doesn’t include dirt roads, five-cent candy stores or other things the community remembers from the past. The City tries to protect its land for the future. He noted that the easy parcels to develop are gone; Novi has difficult parcels remaining for development.

Member Meyer added that he has also visited the Troy Temple.

Moved by Member Meyer, seconded by Member Gutman:

Member Burke confirmed that the word "approval" was correct in the second stipulation.

Member Cassis confirmed with City Attorney Kristin Kolb that the Special Land Use motion allows or denies the use. It is not the Preliminary Site Plan motion.

Moved by Member Meyer, seconded by Member Gutman:

Ms. McBeth said that one of the Planning Commission Waivers was left off of the motion sheet – a Waiver for the berm in the front yard greenbelt. Chair Pehrson asked Mr. Anand whether his intention was to place the berm in this area; he said no. Mr. Amann said that the vegetative wall of screening was proposed in its stead. Mr. Beschke said the berm was raised along the southern line and the Applicant has a six-foot wall. They are planting on the residential side. That is the berm through there and it actually falls off quite a bit. It’s well protecting the property. The second Waiver is along the frontage, where a four-foot berm is required. This has been an issue that the Planning Commission has seen before – it’s almost a technicality. From Taft Road, the berm should go up and come down four feet so the viewer is not staring into the side of the building or into the parking lot. As this site sits, it is going up seven feet, and the Applicant is adding another three feet before starting the fall-down. The Applicant is placing the building one hundred feet back. Technically, this isn’t a four-foot berm, but it creeps up so fast and it is so heavily landscaped that it makes sense. He supported this Waiver request for the berm along Taft Road, as well as the other Waiver request. Member Meyer add to the motion, "A Planning Commission Waiver for landscaped berms along Taft Road;" Member Gutman agreed to the change.

There was some discussion about the dumpster relocation, and City Attorney Kristin Kolb suggested the language remain in the motion and the Applicant can still submit new plans with the dumpster relocated and he will know that he doesn’t have to go to the ZBA. Mr. Amann said that he believes his client can get the dumpster relocated to a compliant location.

Member Cassis offered a friendly amendment to the motion, that the Cultural Center (Phase 3) be limited in size to 15,000 square feet and the Applicant will work with the Planning Staff to adjust the plan. Member Meyer said he would not add this stipulation to the motion. Ms. Kolb explained that Member Cassis’ request was that Member Meyer add this stipulation to the motion. If he doesn’t, then Member Cassis can make a separate motion but she added the Planning Commission has to make a motion on the plan that is before it. If the Applicant offers to change the size of the building, that is for them to represent and submit new plans. Unless the Applicant is going to agree to this stipulation, Member Cassis can’t make a motion unilaterally to that effect.

Chair Pehrson asked whether the Planning Commission has the purview to ask the petitioner for the placement of "No parking" signs along both sides of Taft Road, and "Do not block intersection" signs along residents’ egress points. Ms. Kolb said that the Planning Commission can not require anything to the extent that it is off-site. The Planning Commission must take action on the plan that is before it. If the Applicant is willing to make an offer to that effect, it becomes a different story. For the purposes of site plan review the Planning Commission is limited to issues on the site plan.

Ms. McBeth said that an additional Section 9 Waiver is also required for the underage of brick on the Temple building. Member Meyer added to the motion, "A Section 9 Waiver for less than 30% brick on all facades of the building." Member Gutman agreed to the additional language.

Member Cassis said that in good faith, he tried to forge a compromise. He said there are affected people in the audience who reside in the area. He made a plea that the Planning Commission request a scaled-down of the Cultural Center, as he stated earlier. He thought this would go a long way, as so many of the Sri Venkateswara Temple members have said that they want to be good neighbors. The affected people want to be good neighbors too. They are affected by the traffic and the commotion that goes with the project. Member Cassis has agonized over this consideration and it was tough for him. He said his colleagues have agonized too. He hoped and prayed that the Applicant would accept the compromise.

Mr. Amann appreciated Member Cassis’ agony and the difficulty. None of the decisions are easy. The Planning Commission is trying to apply a lot of information to this project and he understood that, especially with a lot of people present and the concerns that have come forth. He addressed the specific nature of Member Cassis’ comment that he relied on the fact that the Woodland Consultant recommended denial, ignoring the fact that all of the other Consultants were finding consistency and approval of the plan. He said that Member Cassis also indicated that he ultimately believed that the site was disproportionate and that was the basis for his request of the Cultural Center size reduction further down from 21,000 square feet, which is already a 33% reduction. Mr. Amann said that the fact is, this proportionality of the use on this site is determined not by a feel, concern or view, but is determined by the very written Ordinances that the Planning Commission is sworn to uphold. The disproportionality is determined by the setbacks that are provided in the Ordinances. The fact is the Applicant has met the Ordinance requirements. He has exceeded the setback requirements and the other Ordinance requirements that affect the proportionality. Although he deeply respects Member Cassis’ request to reduce the size of the Cultural Center, he said his Applicant cannot do so, as he has indicated. The functions and activities that will go on, i.e., social, religious, educational, and are an integral part of the religious objective of this institution. Many other places in which others share their faith, the "cultural" area is physically connected to the worship building; this is not how a temple operates. The prayer hall is that: a prayer hall. He said most of those present may attend someplace where the worship includes services, hymn-singing and other things. That does not occur in a prayer hall. That is why the "Cultural Center" is in fact an integral portion of the Hindu religion. As a practical matter, the size of that building is more important than the size of any other building on the site. The Applicant has already substantially reduced the size below what would otherwise be required.

Mr. Amann said that if this site were to develop under its current zoning, with one acre lots, a total of eight homes could be built. By Ordinance, this could yield over 200,000 square feet of building on this site. Would they be massive homes? Absolutely. Would they be homes that would be built today? Probably not in light of the economy but there may be a day it could happen. The fact is, the proposed use on this site is so small in scale as compared to what is already allowed if in fact the Applicant chose to build eight individual homes. He understood the concern about the size of the Cultural Center, but the objective to lessen the impact or the proportionality would not be met by that request. In fact, none of the trees that the Applicant would be trying to save would be saved by reducing the building because the trees are not in the Cultural Center area. Mr. Amann said his client would not be able to improve upon the size of the Conservation Easement which is already more than three acres. As a practical matter, the voiced concerns do not match up to the specific concerns expressed regarding proportionality. More importantly, they are contrary to the Applicant’s ability to fulfill his religious objective on this site. With all due respect, Mr. Amann said the Applicant could not honor Member Cassis’ request.

Mr. Amann said however, that the Applicant could provide signage, as it relates to Chair Pehrson’s request for "No parking" and "No blocking" signs.

Member Cassis said he appreciated Mr. Amann’s circular logic. With all due respect, there was another attorney present who said these are three buildings. He said that Mr. Amann said that the plan is abiding by the Ordinances. How come there are eleven variances? Apparently the Applicant is not abiding by all of the Ordinances. Mr. Amann said that the variances listed are all variances supported by the Staff. Mr. Amann said that more importantly, the comment made by that attorney was contrary to the opinion expressed and the Finding of the Planner. From a statutory perspective, this is much more important for the Planning Commission’s consideration than an opinion expressed from a member of the audience.

Chair Pehrson asked Mr. Amann about the signage. Mr. Amann said that the Applicant would be willing to add the signage for "No parking" on Taft Road and "No blockading" of the intersections of the residences along Taft Road. Chair Pehrson was unsure of what the exact language would be. Mr. Amann said they would approach this issue through a process with Public Safety to make that determination.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Burke [Member Meyer’s motion was not re-stated, but referred to by Member Gutman as Member Meyer’s motion and the additional language was then added]:

Ms. Kolb said that to the extent that most of the land adjacent to the road is probably City of Novi right-of-way the request shouldn’t be an issue. Some of the old plats may extend the property lines to the Cultural Center center of the road. In these cases, the Applicant will have to work with the property owners. Mr. Amann said that if the property owners are willing to have the signs, his Applicant was willing to place them. Chair Pehrson said that as a condition of the Applicant’s good neighborness, he asked that they discourage their membership from parking on Taft Road.

Member Wrobel asked whether the City would have to review this stipulation of adding the signage. Ms. Kolb said that Applicant can make the offer; she assumed they will work with Staff to figure out the logistics of the stipulation. Member Wrobel confirmed that if a City Staff member doesn’t want the signage, the point would become moot.

Moved by Member Meyer, seconded by Member Burke:

Moved by Member Meyer, seconded by Member Burke:

Moved by Member Meyer, seconded by Member Burke:

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Wrobel:

There were no Consent Agenda removals for Planning Commission action.

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 10:21 PM.

WED 11/05/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 11/10/08 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 11/11/08 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

WED 11/12/08 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:00 PM

WED 11/19/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 11/24/08 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

THU/FRI 11/27&11/28 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

MON 12/01/08 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 12/10/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 12/15/08 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

Transcribed by Jane L. Schimpf

Customer Service Representative Signature on File

October 31, 2008 Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date

Date Approved: November 5, 2008