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

Absent: Members Greco (excused), Lynch (excused), Prince (excused)

Also Present: Barbara McBeth, Deputy Director of Community Development; Kristen Kapelanski, Planner; Mark Spencer, Planner; Lindon Ivezaj, City Engineer; David Beschke, City Landscape Architect; Rod Arroyo, City Traffic Consultant; Tom Schultz, City Attorney

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

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Larson:

No one from the audience wished to speak.

There was no Correspondence.

There were no Committee Reports.

Deputy Director McBeth stated that City Council approved the second reading of the Wetland and Watercourse Protection Ordinance Update as well as the Update to the Wetland Map. Also approved were the Zoning Map Amendment and Planned Rezoning Overlay for the Medilodge of Novi to rezone from R-3 (One-Family Residential) to RM-1 (Low-Rise Low Density Multiple Family Residential).

There were no Consent Agenda items.

Public Hearing of the request of Novi Mile, LLC, for Planning Commission’s recommendation to City Council for rezoning of property in Section 16, east of Beck Road, between I-96 and Grand River Avenue, from OST, Planned Office Service Technology, to FS, Freeway Service District with a Planned Rezoning Overlay (PRO). The subject property is approximately 1.81 acres.

Planner Kapelanski stated that the applicant is proposing to rezone, with a PRO, a 1.8 acre site on the east side of Beck Road between I-96 and Grand River Avenue. The site is currently vacant but was formerly a nursery. To the north is MDOT right-of-way; to the east is the balance of the former nursery site with the Wixom ready-mix plant further to the east; to the south is Michigan Laser and to the west is Westmarket Square, across Beck Road.

The subject property is currently zoned OST and the proposed zoning is FS. The site is bordered by OST zoning to the east and south and B-2 zoning on the western side of Beck Road.

The future land use map indicates office uses for the subject property and the properties to the south and east with local commercial uses planned on the western side of Beck Road. The proposed rezoning would be contrary to the current recommendations of the Future Land Use map. Additionally, the subject property is part of an area involved in the Master Plan update and new recommendations for this area for a Retail Service Overlay Provision are anticipated as part of the Master Plan update.

Planner Kapelanski stated that this concept plan appeared before the Planning Commission in January seeking recommendation for a straight rezoning to FS. At that meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed straight rezoning. When the matter appeared before Council, the Council accepted the applicant’s offer to enter into a PRO agreement and the Council directed the applicant to work with staff on a PRO. The applicant has now included a concept plan as part of their rezoning request showing a 6,820 square foot gas station with an attached drive-through fast food restaurant. Planning staff is recommending denial of the proposed rezoning with PRO as the rezoning would be contrary to the recommendations of the Master Plan and the proposed site area is not large enough to accommodate the proposed building without significant ordinance deviations. These deviations include deficient parking setbacks in the western and southern yard, deficient dumpster setback and significant landscape waivers.

As part of their proposed public benefit, the applicant has agreed to construct a road connecting Grand River Avenue and Beck Road. This road is anticipated to be included as part of the recommendations of the planned Retail Service Overlay District. The first section of the road would be constructed along with the USA 2 Go development with the remainder of the road constructed when the next parcel to be serviced by the road is developed. The road connection plan has been included as part of the concept plan. The City’s Traffic Consultant recommended a minor alteration to the planned road layout but recommends approval of the concept plan and road layout.

The Engineering review and Fire review also recommend approval with items to be addressed on the Preliminary Site Plan. The Façade review noted no concerns with the design of the building, but did recommend the applicant redesign the canopy to be in compliance with the façade ordinance. The Landscape review noted a number of deficient items. These include the lack of berms along I-96, Beck Road and the proposed connection road and a deficient greenbelt along the Beck Road and I-96 frontage. In lieu of the required berm along the access road, the applicant has proposed a three foot high wall for a portion of the frontage. Staff would recommend the applicant continue this wall along the entire access road frontage. In addition, the site is lacking the required amount of parking lot landscaping and the required building foundation landscaping. Lastly, the applicant has included signage as part of their concept plan application. Typically, signage is not included in a PRO Agreement and is instead sent to the Zoning Board of Appeals to receive any required variances during the site plan review process. The Sign Code is not part of the Zoning Ordinance. Typically, only Zoning Ordinance deviations are included in the PRO Agreement. The applicant has proposed a sixty-six square foot ground sign. For comparison purposes, this would be similar to the ground sign at Henry Ford Medical Center. The Sign Code would only permit a thirty square foot ground sign. The applicant has also proposed three wall signs. The Sign Code only permits one ground sign or one wall sign for each business. Signs are also shown on the canopy. The Sign Code does not allow any canopy signs. The applicant has been meeting with and working with staff to eliminate some of the deviations proposed as part of the original concept plan. Planned Kapelanski indicated she and the applicant were available to address questions and the City’s Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo was at the meeting to address any traffic questions.

Mr. Blair Bowman, Novi Mile, LLC came forward and stated that the Commission will recall that this property was previously the subject of a rezoning application for a straight FS (Freeway Service) rezoning, which was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission to the City Council. Novi Mile, LLC had an opportunity to work with both the City Council and staff in looking at the benefits and the approach of using a PRO.

One of Mr. Bowman’s concerns with utilizing the PRO process was with timing, but he is relatively confident and comfortable in regards to when the applicant will be back in front of City Council. Some of the points of the PRO are outlined in the various motion items and options and Novi Mile LLC would still like to be able to discuss those with staff after this evening. Mr. Bowman wondered if the PRO process is ongoing until to the matter appears before the City Council, or if items are sorted out at the Planning Commission meeting as far as timing and the requirements for construction of the access road, prohibitions on turning movements and those types of things that were discussed with staff as being a concern.

Mr. Bowman indicated the PRO allows the applicant and the City the opportunity to deal with some of the very unique components of the site. Many of the deficiencies that were identified were technically probably there and accurate. The proposed use is consistent with the anticipated future land uses of the site and the on-going discussions at the Master Plan and Zoning Committee. Given the setback of this site from the thoroughfares itself; there are massive amounts of green space that will work in conjunction with the proposed landscaping and screening efforts that are part of the plan now to certainly offset any of those types of potential deficiencies.

Chair Pehrson asked if there was anyone in the audience that would like to participate and address the Commission on this matter. Seeing no one, Chair Pehrson closed the Public Hearing and turned it over to the Planning Commission.

City Attorney Schultz explained the difference between a PRO and a straight rezoning. When Mr. Bowman was before the Commission the last time, his request was for a straight rezoning and there were no requirements for road concessions or anything like that. That was just a rezoning request and was recommended for approval to City Council and Council thought some of the issues about access and turn movements could maybe be dealt with in a PRO Agreement.

City Attorney Schultz explained the next step in the process is for the City Council to receive a recommendation from the Planning Commission on whether or not the rezoning should occur and the recommended conditions of the PRO. The motion sheet prepared by staff explains the proposed benefits and the conditions of approval; namely the new collector road, access to the MDOT, stormwater basin and the applicant has asked for some ability to relax some of the standards of the Zoning Ordinance as outlined by Planner Kapelanski. The Planning Commission is asked to have a general discussion about the proposed deviations and the kinds of conditions that should be imposed.

Member Baratta inquired as to whether a PRO and PUD (Planned Unit Development) are the same thing? As part of a complete plan, Member Baratta would expect to receive a master plan of sorts showing buildable areas for the entire four to five acres of the site surrounding the road. Member Baratta asked if it common to get an entire plan in a submission for a PRO?

City Attorney Schultz stated that what is proposed here for discussion is entirely appropriate under the City’s PRO or under a PUD.

Mr. Bowman stated that when this application appeared before the City Council it was for a straight rezoning and the staff and administration felt the proposed rezoning could affect some of the other properties in the area and Novi Mile LLC agreed. The applicant has provided a concept plan for development of the gas station site as a part of the PRO. As far as off-site work to properties outside of the gas station site, the applicant does not know at this point what will be built in that area. The applicant has offered the road development and proposed it in the locations where the City wants it to begin and end. The applicant is mainly focusing on the gas station site and the additional benefits. It is appropriate for this kind of proposal.

Member Baratta asked if in the Planning Commission’s deliberation of this proposal, is it appropriate as part of our discussion of this PRO to include the designated timeframe that the road and infrastructure would have to be completed by?

City Attorney Schultz stated that that kind of discussion was appropriate. As shown in the provided materials, the applicant has not agreed to construct the road with the development of the gas station, but, when the next development comes in, that is when the road will be built. Those offers and City commentary on those are listed in the motion sheet and those are the kinds of things that can be discussed.

Member Baratta stated he was an advocate of the proposed gas station use when the previous proposal was presented. From a successful business standpoint, a gas station and Tim Horton’s on Beck Road should do very well with work traffic. Also, from a business standpoint, the site configuration makes a lot of sense with those particular uses. At first glance, the site does not appear big enough to facilitate the proposed uses.

Member Baratta indicated when talking to real estate developers, he usually tells them that the land is the cheapest thing in a project and the major cost is in the infrastructure that needs to be developed on the site and if there is ever expansion with other structures, it is extremely difficult after the fact to find property and acquire it. The site is too small for what the applicant is proposing. There are setback deviations that would be not be required if the applicant could acquire more property. Staff did not think there would be issues regarding the fuel tanks and fire trucks. But it does seem like it creates a difficult situation with having to fill those tanks in front of the buildings and between the gas pumps. There was not a sidewalk proposed on Beck Road and there should be one. As far as signage, this should have to comply with the City’s standards, including both wall signs and canopy signs.

Member Baratta stated that the applicant has a great development, but is just short on property. Member Baratta asked Mr. Bowman if he had tried to acquire additional property.

Mr. Bowman responded the applicant did acquire additional property and expanded the site area to what it is now. Also, from a standpoint of construction of a 6,800 square foot building, this is a sizeable piece of property. In looking at the parking requirements of the community, there is some of it that has a reasonable and rational relationship to the use and others that don’t. It puts an excessive amount of pavement area in for this type of site plan and use and the applicant has worked with staff regarding how the parking layout will work and the berming, or absent thereof on the site along the collector road. In looking at the site itself and where it is positioned, it is a huge piece of property when you consider all of the green space and all of the non-used right-of-way along the Beck Road and the I-96 frontage. Technically the site looks tight on paper but it is going to appear much larger with the added off-site landscaping outside of the property lines in the right-of-way. From an operation standpoint, this is an easy flow of movement of both vehicles, with parking in the rear of the building for employees. It is a very well situated site plan for the site and it is a sizeable one.

Member Baratta asked if the total building area, including the Tim Horton’s and the gas pump is 6,820 square feet and does that include the canopy?

Mr. Bowman responded he did not think the 6,820 square feet included the canopy area.

Member Baratta asked about the size of the canopy because he looks at that as part of the building structure since it takes up square footage on the site.

Mr. Bowman answered he did not know the size of the canopy off-hand, but could probably size it out on the plan. From an operation standpoint, canopies are determined as a convenience and comfort factor which provide screening from the elements when pumping gas in an outdoor setting and also provide the fire suppression capabilities.

Member Baratta stated from the discussion at the last Planning Commission meeting, he was of the impression that what the applicant was creating was more than just a gas station and more of a retail store, a liquor store. If it is more of a retail store, the applicant would have to meet retail parking codes. Tim Horton’s is a restaurant and has seating which will need parking as well. The applicant is going to generate sales from this investment and maybe one day may want to consider adding on to it. This is a wonderful investment from a profit potential, however, the applicant does not have enough real estate for this proposal.

Mr. Bowman answered he did not want to be argumentative and Member Baratta’s points are well taken. There is no credit in the parking space calculations given for the overlap in those uses. This is a situation where someone is going to come into the fuel station for fuel, and that person could be a possible customer for the convenience store, and a possible customer for coffee or a meal at Tim Horton’s. The way the ordinance lays out and is structured right now an applicant has to provide parking for each use per the ordinance standards. In the applicant’s first transition in presenting this to the staff, they had actually eliminated the parking in the rear because it seemed excessive for what our operations would need. This development is going to have excess parking.

Member Baratta asked Mr. Bowman if he felt that the fuel trucks did not create a traffic issue between the canopy and the proposed retail building for off-loading.

Mr. Bowman does not believe the fuel truck will create a traffic issue because this is an operation where the fueling will take place well outside of any mainstream peak period of operation. Given that, the site is designed as proposed in such a way that even if it was fully active, the fuel trucks could facilitate a fuel-up and exit the site safely and without causing or impeding traffic flow.

Member Baratta asked when the fuel truck comes in, will it go east on the proposed new road off of Beck Road and turn left and go around the Tim Horton’s or go in front of Tim Horton’s and the proposed gas station/retail store and fill the tanks?

Mr. Bowman answer stated there is an area for the drive-through lane as well as two lanes of traffic to pass on the north side of the building.

Member Baratta asked if there has been discussion on putting that underground tank behind the building.

Mr. Bowman stated that the design efforts and construction of this were discussed at length and the fuel tanks were designed into the plan where they are located for a reason and purpose. Mr. Bowman does not know the exact reason why the tanks cannot be in the back of the site, but does know that the location was thoroughly thought through.

Member Larson wanted to commend Mr. Bowman on the great plan and his effort on what he does in the City. Member Larson asked Mr. Bowman if the building is 119 feet tall?

Mr. Bowman answered that he did not think so.

Member Larson stated that on the elevations, the plan says 119 feet, 0 inches.

Member Meyer asked if Traffic Consultant Arroyo could come forward and share some information with the Planning Commission about the access road. Member Meyer asked when the road will go in. Will it be before the gas station is built or afterwards and will it provide a safety factor? Member Meyer said he is trying to picture when the heaviest traffic might be and when Rock Financial has a show and when the show ends and traffic is coming out, people may want to pull into the gas station for gas or use the convenience store. Will this be safely positioned so there will not be any problems with so many cars at this particular time?

Traffic Consultant Arroyo answered the proposed access road will be built to the City’s collector road standards which would provide for a three-lane cross section, essentially. The road would be extended to the east and make a connection to the south to Grand River Avenue at the time the next development occurs that is under the control of the applicant. An issue that has been raised is a potential connection to the east and the relationship to Rock Financial Showplace. One of the comments in the traffic review letter is that the new road be designed so it would function as a collector roadway, which means a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour, which means the road would be designed for 35 miles per hour. Typically, a road is designed five miles per hour over the posted speed limit so it would truly function in that manner.

Traffic Consultant Arroyo stated it is anticipated that the traffic on this roadway will increase over time as development occurs on the properties to the east. There is the possibility a connection even farther to the east could be established to ultimately connect into the Rock Financial Showplace. The Master Plan and Zoning Committee has been discussing a road network here that would run parallel to Grand River Avenue on both the north and south sides that would eventually tie into Grand River in more than one place. The idea here is to build a network that is an alternative to using Grand River Avenue to try to provide some relief. That is what is being proposed and as it is built out will ultimately provide a benefit to the City in terms of having that network in place to help relieve some traffic congestion issues.

Member Cassis stated there are two issues before the Planning Commission tonight, the rezoning and the PRO. As far as the rezoning, Member Cassis indicated some of the Planning Commissioners have gone over the matter on committee level and the Planning Commission level and have digested that process quite intensively. But, gathering from the Council discussion, as well as our discussions here, there are more particulars as far as the site is concerned and the PRO benefits. Member Cassis stated that there are quite a few things that are required of the applicant to comply with as far as the proposed motions are concerned. Member Cassis asked the applicant if those were acceptable.

Mr. Bowman would like to clarify or modify some of the conditions in the motion. But, in general, was in concurrence with the PRO concept, with a few minor modifications.

Member Cassis stated it appears the applicant has one or two issues to sort out in regards to the suggested motion and he is surprised those haven’t been discussed with the staff beforehand.

Mr. Bowman said he would like to address those outstanding issues now. They have been talked about but, the applicant just hasn’t had a full opportunity to digest those and then agree with everything. This is the kind of process that the PRO allows.

Member Cassis asked the applicant if this was a premature application.

Mr. Bowman answered no and indicated the applicant was ready to proceed to City Council following this recommendation for approval of the formal agreement.

Mr. Bowman stated that one of the issues was the timing of the road and when it gets constructed. Establishing some sort of trigger mechanism is an appropriate way of determining when the road should be constructed instead of just saying arbitrarily it should be constructed two years from now. The applicant’s promise going into this process was it could be shown and proven that the traffic could safely operate with the gas convenience center use on the site without any alterations, including the construction of the access road. The traffic study and analysis has shown that the gas station could operate safely without any upgrades to the road network. The next step is to determine when the road is constructed. It would be foolish to say that there is a master plan for that area and get locked into that and then have to come back and change it later.

Mr. Bowman explained that the positioning of this road and the dedication of the right-of-way were key concerns of the City and the applicant is willing to do both of those things. When the applicant begins construction on their next project they would be responsible for and install that road. What has now been introduced by the suggested motion is the fact that any other property owner could trigger the construction of that road. While the applicant is not entirely opposed to some condition being drafted into the PRO stating that, the adjacent owner would have to be responsible for their proportionate share of the costs then as a part of their site planning responsibilities.

Member Cassis stated that this is one issue that should be sorted out and referenced the portion of the road that goes east and along the southern side of the applicant’s property. Would the applicant agree to construct the portion of the road going east and continuing until it turns south? Member Cassis stated that the applicant may want to split the construction into two parts but in listening to the applicant, they would like to instead complete the whole road whenever that trigger is activated.

Mr. Bowman said the applicant is willing to construct, at this time, the access road up to the property line of the current proposal.

Member Cassis asked the applicant when the rest of the construction would be triggered.

Mr. Bowman said what the applicant was willing to commit to is to construct the road whenever the current owner begins construction on another parcel. The applicant and/or owner cannot control or commit to continue construction on the access road based on what adjacent owners might or might not be willing to do. If an adjacent property owner were to want to take advantage of the arrangements outlined in the PRO Agreement, they should be required to fulfill certain requirements of the planning process as far as secondary access and this could be a method in which they would do that. If they triggered the construction of the road, they would either install it, or come up with some sharing arrangement and it would get installed.

Member Cassis confirmed with the applicant they are committed to installing the road themselves.

City Attorney Schultz stated that this is an agreement that we are working on and thinks what the applicant is offering is the bare minimum - the construction of a road that is important to the City. What the applicant said is that they own everything, including the property where the road is going, but the property immediately south of the gas station, they do not own. If the applicant develops any that the property they own, their proposal is they will build the rest of the road at that time. The concern is if the property to the south that the applicant does not own is developed as a restaurant or something like that, then the City would need the road and that is a condition included in the suggested motion. It seems like Mr. Bowman has indicated that might be something the applicant is willing to do. The agreement still needs to be drafted and all the Planning Commission needs to do is conceptually impose a condition regarding that issue. The applicant has said that may be feasible if some kind of cost sharing arrangement can be worked out. That is worth talking about.

If the Planning Commission is okay with that, then as part of the recommendation, the Planning Commission would accept that. If the Planning Commission does not like that idea, then stick with the language that is drafted, but the Commission is going to have to make that call.

Member Cassis asked City Attorney Schultz if the arrangement that has been discussed can be drafted into the agreement and without being a condition of the Planning Commission’s motion.

City Attorney Schultz explained that as part of the Planning Commission’s motion, instead of "construction of the road should take place when development begins on any adjacent property", the Planning Commission would say "…any property provided it is Novi Mile LLC’s property". Some arrangement would have to be made if the adjacent property belonged to a different owner.

Member Cassis explained that the whole point of this discussion is to try to give City Council and the City Attorney enough information to draft an agreement. Member Cassis asked the applicant what the second issue of concern was.

Mr. Bowman responded there is a suggested condition in the motion and in the traffic review letter that the left hand turning movement out onto Beck Road from the collector road should be prohibited once the collector road is installed. Looking at reasonable parameters and guidelines it might not have to be a complete prohibition. Could there be limited left turns at certain timeframes throughout the day. What if there was the ability to signalize that intersection and create a safer environment even with heavier traffic and meet the standards for still allowing left hand turning movements? The applicant does not want to say as part of this agreement, that left turns will be prohibited. Traffic Consultant Arroyo might be able to speak and explain some of the ways that it could be done from a limitation standpoint versus a complete prohibition.

Member Cassis asked if Traffic Consultant Arroyo could give the Planning Commission some input as far as Mr. Bowman’s concerns.

Traffic Consultant Arroyo stated there was some discussion earlier about the potential for a traffic signal at the location where the collector would intersect with Beck Road. Traffic Consultant Arroyo received a letter from the Road Commission for Oakland County before the meeting and they indicated that they believe that this is not a viable location for a traffic signal due to the proximity of the Grand River intersection. If something were to be presented at a later point that changed the County’s minds, a traffic signal could be considered but that is not likely.

Other issues deal with the prohibition of left turns and at peak hours that is absolutely not going to be appropriate when the connection to Grand River is made. The applicant is suggesting, could there be some off-peak times when potentially those left turns could be allowed. Traffic Consultant Arroyo would be open to evaluating that at some point in the future and keeping the options open for that to happen. It could be that it is okay at certain off-peak times for that to happen, but it is all going to depend upon the conditions on the adjacent roadway and what is being generated by the sites that are accessing this road and during peak hours that it is not going to be appropriate. But, for off-peak times, that could be evaluated at some point in the future.

City Attorney Schultz stated that the motion includes a condition that there will be a presumption that when the road is built that the left hand turns will go away. But, the last couple of lines of that suggested condition read "provided that at the time of development approval or site plan approval, the applicant or its successor’s can seek to address left turn issues as part of the site plan approval."

Mr. Bowman asked if that language could be altered, that it would not necessarily be presumed that left turns would be prohibited but obviously if the City deemed it a safety hazard, that movement could be prohibited. It seems like at peak times it is probably not going to make sense.

Chair Pehrson stated that he could give a practical example of why left turns should be prohibited from the standpoint of having to get into Chase Bank off of Grand River Avenue. There is a no left turn allowed into the easterly most entrance so a driver has to go down to Michigan Laser and turn-around and come back. The entire reason for that urban interchange was to reduce traffic accidents at that intersection. At 100 yards away from that signal the City is just going to allow someone to turn left onto Beck Road heading south and go across both lanes of traffic? That doesn’t seem likely and it doesn’t seem like anyone could drive across that intersection safely.

City Attorney Schultz stated it is the City’s decision at the end of the day, subject to the persuasive efforts of the applicant.

Member Cassis stated that he was questioning that left turn movement when the proposal was first presented to the Master Plan and Zoning Committee a year ago. Member Cassis asked the applicant how important that left turn movement is to the project. It is kind of a redundant thing that the applicant will be constructing that new access road and putting money into it and its entire purpose is to relieve congestion and accommodate drivers who want to go left but the applicant still wants to allow the left turn movement onto Beck Road. It’s a circular kind of situation, but the applicant may have an argument that a left turn could be allowed for one or two hours a day.

Mr. Bowman stated that Chair Pehrson’s comment is very appropriate to this discussion and he wonders why the artificial barrier was put in along Beck Road.

Member Cassis answered the reason it was put in was because the Beck Road interchange was going to be a clover-leaf single point urban interchange.

Mr. Bowman said he was talking about the concrete artificial median.

Member Cassis said that they have devised a certain way to get around the ease of traffic with a clover-leaf.

Mr. Bowman stated that with attempting to make it easy and restricting, some very negative and difficult circumstances have been created. On a daily basis, people do exactly that. People take a left turn into the right in and right out only.

Member Cassis stated that maybe it would be a good idea to completely prohibit left turns.

Mr. Bowman answered that the traffic analysis thus far as indicated that the movement can occur now and the remaining issue is whether that movement will be prohibited in the future. For example, a late evening traveler coming in at 11:00PM when there is no traffic at all may want to turn left onto Beck Road instead of going all the way around to Grand River. Some practicality can blend with the safety concerns here very easily. Given the right set of circumstances and the right economic development opportunity, a signal may be important to a major corporate tenant, and a signal may be a possibility in the future.

Member Cassis asked what the public benefits associated with the PRO are?

Mr. Bowman reiterated the public benefits including the circulation road system, the off-site joint landscaping in the right-of-way, continuation of the screening wall and those types of things. The applicant has presented one of the nicest gas station and convenience center designs and is looking to make a very significant investment and provide a much needed service to that intersection. Everyone agrees with the Master Plan and Zoning efforts that have been talked about at this location. This parcel and the surrounding parcels are seen as a long term location where some major, positive economic development can take place.

Mr. Bowman would like to continue discussion with the City on how the balance of the property will develop, but looks to the PRO now as a sensible way to commit to the location of the road, commit to the donation of the right-of-way for that and work with the City in concert to try to develop the potential with Michigan Department of Transportation for the off-site basin for that the entire area, including the interchange itself. There are a number of positive things to gain out of the PRO.

Member Cassis stated that the most important positive would be the future development of the area. Member Cassis thanked Mr. Bowman for bringing in some good and healthy projects to that area. This project also impacts the development of The Rock Financial Showplace area. That area is so great and the economic conditions of today prevent the development of some larger projects. Member Cassis is looking forward to seeing some huge project in the area that will make the gas station a small project in scale.

Mr. Bowman stated that the PRO provides a vehicle for dealing with some of the uniqueness of the site and setting out a pretty definite plan. Novi Mile LLC has a very major stake in the investment along this corridor. Things are getting better and there are signs of life with the consumers and the attendance at the Rock Financial Showplace shows. Member Meyer previously referenced the peak times and relative to the Rock Financial Showplace shows and those types of things and concerns over safety. The one nice thing about the operations at the Showplace is they are at exactly diametrically opposed to peak time periods; weekend traffic, late in the evening, late in the afternoon or early evening traffic type of things. The Showplace has been able to operate relatively efficiently although there have been a couple of shows that have given us a couple of challenges lately.

Member Meyer stated that the golf show was a perfect example. It was wall to wall traffic from Beck Road down to Rock Financial and from Rock Financial down to Novi Road in both directions.

Mr. Bowman stated that it was not so much as a traffic issue as it was a ticket selling situation inside the building. No one would have known that Friday of the Michigan Golf Show would have that type of turnout. It was the busiest show start of any show in history, even including the old operations. The Showplace added some extra personnel and within one hour that back-up was cleared. There were no operational issues and no backup onto the road for the rest of the weekend, which was much busier.

Member Meyer stated he hoped the decision to prohibit left turns or install a traffic signal would not be based on a fatality. On Novi Road alone there are four traffic lights between I-96 and the entrance to the Town Center and Grand River and the lights are within a very short distance and every one of them is necessary.

Member Gutman stated the Master Plan and Zoning Committee discussed this site a few times and there was discussion at a prior Planning Commission meeting where the Planning Commission recommended approval without the PRO. The Planning Commission has expressed support in many different ways. Member Gutman commended Mr. Bowman and John Bowen for the hard work they have done with the City on coming up with the best possible gas station design. Member Gutman asked the applicant if he could confirm the drive-through fast food restaurant would be a Tim Horton’s.

Mr. Bowman answered that it was not necessarily going to be a Tim Horton’s. The applicant is dealing with some timing issues and that the user is directly affected by those.

Member Gutman asked if there was enough flexibility built into the PRO process, assuming the Planning Commission recommends approval to City Council, that when it gets to the City Attorney’s desk to draft the agreement to flesh out those items that the City and applicant are not fully in agreement on.

City Attorney Schultz stated there is leeway. This project has been fast-tracked in the sense that normally the Planning Commission would make some conceptual recommendations and then it would go to the City Council for more clarification and then it would come to the City Attorney’s office for a draft of the Agreement and then it would come back again to City Council. The City Attorney’s office and the applicant are working on the agreement as we are talking, and the Planning Commission’s comments give both parties the input needed to sort of finish the agreement so it can be put before City Council. Council can be flexible at the time it makes its decision and the language of the agreement can have some flexibility, if that is the direction from the Planning Commission and the City Council. The good thing about the PRO is it’s all about flexibility.

Member Gutman asked if there is even a need to put in some language in the motion that offers flexibility between the applicant and the City.

City Attorney Schultz responded that kind of flexibility does not need to be in the motion.

Motion made by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Larson:

Chair Pehrson thanked Mr. Bowman for bringing this back with the PRO and noted he was the one dissenter on the last vote and now feels much better with the PRO. The applicant should be aware that relative to the ground sign, the City is looking for something tasteful. This can be made into a signature on that corner.

Deputy Director McBeth stated that speaking to the Chair’s comments just now regarding the signage and the on-going discussions, staff has been talking with the applicant about the signage that was proposed. As the Planning Commission can see from the motion, the proposed signage is quite a bit larger than what is typically allowed for gas stations, maybe twice the area for the ground sign and twice the height. Staff and the applicant seemed to be reaching some agreements today about reducing the height and the size of that ground sign. There is also some discussion about possibly adjusting the wall signs, still providing three, but maybe one on the north side and two on the west side. Staff and the applicant are looking for a little flexibility and there might be some modifications to that actual signage and the applicant has said they will continue to work with the staff on the proposed signage.

Chair Pehrson stated that to the extent that the Planning Commission needs to add language relative to allow staff and the applicant to make those determinations, is that language in what has been included in the motion?

City Attorney Schultz stated that there needs to be a correction to item o, which right now says that the Planning Commission has no objection to what’s proposed. I think as Deputy Director McBeth just indicated, that the motion should read "that the applicant and the City work towards appropriate signage" so that the Planning Commission is not actually recommending variances for the signage to the Zoning Board of Appeals, which is how is the motion is currently written.

Member Gutman agreed to the suggested amendment to the motion as did the seconder, Member Larson.

Member Cassis noted this property is close to a freeway asked if the signage in that area can be a bit flexible.

Deputy Director McBeth stated there is a bit more of flexibility for properties that abut the freeway and that are in the Freeway Service District and staff is taking that into consideration.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Larson:

There were no Consent Agenda removals.

There were no Matters for Discussion.

There were no Supplemental Issues.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Larson:

Motion to adjourn. Motion carried 6-0.

Transcribed by Juanita Freeman

Account Clerk

March, 2010

Date Approved: July 14, 2010 ___signature on file_____________________________

Richelle Leskun, Planning Assistant