Consideration of the request of Siegal Tuomaala Associates, for Planning Commission’s recommendation to City Council for rezoning of property in Section 26, east of Ten Mile Road, and south of Novi Road, from I-1, Light Industrial District and OS-1, Office Service District to B-2, Community Business District and OS-1, Office Service District with a Planned Rezoning Overlay (PRO). The subject property is approximately 28.7 acres.

Member Cassis asked City Attorney Schultz if the applicant’s request was for a change of the Master Plan for Land Use Future Land Use designation for the subject property.

City Attorney Schultz stated that the Master Plan that was approved previously in the meeting is effective.

Member Cassis asked City Attorney Schultz if this matter requires a public hearing.

City Attorney Schultz indicated a public hearing was held on this matter by the Planning Commission several weeks ago and all the Planning Commission needs to do at this point is make a recommendation to City Council on the rezoning.

Planner Kapelanski showed the location map for the property. The applicant is proposing the rezoning with PRO of an approximately 28.7 acre parcel located on the south side of Ten Mile road east of Novi Road from I-1, Light Industrial and OS-1, Office Service to B-2, Community Business and OS-1, Office Service with a Planned Rezoning Overlay. To the north of the property, across Ten Mile Road, are various industrial uses. To the west are office uses. To the south is vacant land and multiple-family residential and to the east is existing industrial.

The subject property is currently zoned I-1 and OS-1. The site is bordered by I-1 and I-2 zoning to the north, I-1 zoning to the east, OS-1 zoning to the west and I-1, RM-1 and OS-1 zoning to the south.

There are existing wetlands on the site, mainly concentrated along the creek. The majority of the site is also part of a regulated woodland.

Planning staff has noted in the review letter that denial of the rezoning is recommended as the proposed zoning is not consistent with existing zoning in the area, recently completed retail studies indicate the City has a surplus of commercially zoned land and the City currently has a retail vacancy rate near 10%. In addition, the rezoning would be contrary to the approved Master Plan for Land Use, which recommends industrial and office uses for the site. The rezoning would also be contrary to an Implementation Strategy listed in the Master Plan for Land Use. The applicant is proposing a 64,000 square foot Kroger store, a 41,000 square foot shopping center and space for additional buildings in the future. There are a number of issues regarding the proposed concept plan. The applicant would need deviations for the proposed building height of the shopping center and the Kroger store, the loading space and dumpster location of the shopping center and façade waivers for both the shopping center and Kroger store. Four driveway spacing waivers would be required, as would various landscape waivers. A PRO requires the applicant propose a public benefit that is above and beyond the activities that would occur as a result of the normal development of the property. The applicant has proposed the grading of a sports field to be located in the existing park behind the Novi Ice Arena. This would also include providing seed for the field, as well as irrigation. Twenty gravel parking spaces would be installed along with a landscaped park entrance way. Included in the packet is a memo from the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department commenting on the proposed public benefit. Since that memo was written, the applicant has proposed to irrigate the field.

The Landscape Review noted landscape waivers could potentially be required for the lack of berms along the road frontage, the lack of perimeter canopy trees, more than fifteen contiguous parking spaces without a landscape island, a shortage of front façade landscaping and the amount of foundation landscape plantings. The applicant has not clearly demonstrated on the concept plan that these requirements can be met.

Planner Kapelanski indicated that the façade review noted a Section 9 wavier is required for the overages of EIFS, C-brick and split faced CMU and the underage of brick on the Kroger and shopping center buildings. Approval of the requested waiver is recommended.

This matter was previously brought before the Planning Commission on June 23, 2010. At that meeting, the Planning Commission postponed their recommendation noting further information was needed regarding the stormwater, the wetlands and woodlands and on how this new store would affect other nearby retail.

The applicant has since submitted a plan to address the stormwater and wetland concerns and the Engineering Department is now satisfied that the stormwater can be adequately handled on site. The City’s wetland consultant also noted in the revised review that no substantial outstanding wetland concerns remain and the applicant has reduced impacts so that they are below the threshold for mitigation.

The Woodland Review comments remain, with the letter noting various concerns regarding the large amount of regulated woodlands on site and the fact that impacts will likely be substantial. Dr. John Freeland is also available to answer any woodland questions.

Planner Kapelanski indicated that there were a number of concerns noted in the traffic review although conditional approval was recommended. The City’s traffic consultant did go over those concerns in detail at the June 23^rd Planning Commission meeting and that information has been included in the excerpt of meeting minutes included in the Planning Commission packets. The City’s Traffic Consultant, Rod Arroyo of Birchler Arroyo is here this evening to address any questions regarding the traffic review comments.

Matthew Quinn came forward on behalf of Dan Weiss & Associates, the applicant, regarding the proposed mixed use project and indicated the applicant has a good plan and project and one that is going to benefit the City. When this matter was before the Planning Commission on June 23, 2010 there was quite a bit of information presented and that is included in the minutes. A decision on the matter was delayed that night because of five items, all of which have now been addressed.

Stormwater detention issues have been resolved with the City Engineer and a letter indicating that is in the Planning Commission packets.

Wetland mitigation has been satisfied and the plans now show that no mitigation is required because there is so little intrusion into the wetlands.

There was a question on the woodland line not being in the right place and that has been corrected and submitted and is no longer an issue.

Mr. Quinn said, the Planning Commission asked for more public input on the Master Plan on the July 14, 2010 meeting and there was no one that came to that meeting that wanted to comment on the Master Plan.

Mr. Quinn said, the Planning Commission also asked about the effect of Kroger on other retail stores in the area. Once again, the Planning Commission has received nothing from staff regarding that. What the Planning Commission has are the market studies that have been done to show the true situation, that there is demand there whether this Kroger store is built or not built and whether there is a Busch store or no Busch store and there is more than enough demand to handle this project.

Mr. Quinn stated that the Traffic Consultant has recommended approval with some conditions and comments. The natural features basically are approved with conditions. The Fire Department has approved it. The Façade Consultant is recommending approval of the required waivers.

The Staff is on record as saying the building height waivers are supported as are the driveway spacing waivers.

Mr. Quinn said, the public benefits that the City is being offered are on page eleven of the Planning Commission packet. The public benefits include a conservation of natural features area through the placement of a conservation easement over approximately 3 acres of the site and improvements to the park area near the Novi Ice Arena consisting of grading, seeding and irrigating a multi-purpose field. Also, on the east side of the Ice Arena, to grade and stone a 20 car auxiliary parking lot and do a park entrance as well as a children’s sculpture and sign at the beginning of the park entrance. The applicant has also proposed extending the center turn lane on Ten Mile Road beyond ordinance requirements. The applicant is going to continue an extra lane on Ten Mile Road in lieu of acceleration and deceleration lanes in excess of requirements. The applicant is going to provide a pocket park located on the northeast corner of the proposed Kroger site and an improved set of architectural elements and materials beyond the ordinance requirements. The applicant is going to provide an extensive internal sidewalk system with pedestrian entry points above ordinance requirements and will extend the eight foot pathway along Ten Mile Road to east into the Walgreen’s access drive, which isn’t required. That is the list of public benefits that is being proposed for this PRO.

Now, what other benefits are being provided for this PRO? First of all, twenty million dollars of tax base will be added to the City by the time this project is done in phases. Through Kroger, over 125 new jobs that do not exist today will be added. When the other phases are completed and those additional retail and restaurants are added, there will be more than 100, probably closer to 200 plus additional jobs. These are public benefits and these are benefits to the citizens and to the City as a whole.

Mr. Quinn stated that they have never asked for any special treatment in this situation from when it started in 2004. Some people think this is being rushed, remember, this project was first submitted in 2004. This project was put on hold because the City said to hold up while we improve the intersection of Ten Mile Road and Novi Road so the traffic that is going to be caused by this project could be accommodated.

Mr. Quinn stated that the applicant has complied with every request that the City has made throughout the years. The City has asked for special treatment from the applicant and has not asked for anything.

Novi tries to be business friendly. Novi, through Mayor Landry over his five years in office now, has made a special attempt to be business friendly to new businesses coming into the community. This is a landowner of 30 plus years that is bringing business to the community. How business friendly is Novi going to be to a twenty million dollar project with an excess of 200-300 jobs and how business friendly is Novi.

Mr. Quinn stated he wanted to bring up an argument that has been brought up by the staff multiple times and it has to be mentioned. The argument is these businesses shouldn’t be retail because the retail vacancy rate is now at 9.8 to 8.9 percent vacant. A common vacancy rate is seven percent or less. This is not that out of line with the current retail vacancies. Let’s look at the industrial vacancies. In the Planning Commission’s own document, it shows 18.8 percent vacancy in industrial buildings in Novi. Right next door across the railroad tracks to the east, there is a 107,000 square foot building that has been empty. A mile away on Nine Mile Road, there are two buildings across the street east of Novi Road in excess of 200,000 square feet of industrial space that are empty. The City’s own documents said it will remain industrial for about 48 years. The City’s studies indicate the City has an eight year reserve of vacant retail land. Does any of that make sense? Why would the City want to leave this industrial? The retail is everything that will make this project work and it is the right thing to do and the Kroger store is needed.

Mr. Quinn said, one final thing I want to talk about is the issue of competition. There have been some comments that if a new Kroger store comes in, it would provide adverse competition to stores in the area. What is America all about if it is not competition? Think about this. There are furniture stores next to furniture stores, tire stores next to tire stores, drive-ins next to drive-ins, restaurants next to restaurants and why? Because they like to be in competition with each other and they draw people to the area. The Kroger store is going to draw people to the area just like the Busch store draws people to the area and competition is good. What else does competition do? First of all, what you’re going to have is more competition in food prices and if you have another grocery store, theoretically food prices should go down. What else are you going to have in the shopping centers around? They are going to be better maintained because the owners of those shopping centers are going to want people to come in. People will want to upgrade the same way the Town Center Mall is upgrading now to try to match the other malls across Novi Road. The City will make a better Novi by granting approval of this project.

Architect Marty Smith came forward and stated that he spoke very quickly earlier and would be glad to reiterate anything that was said if any of the Planning Commissioners have any questions.

Architect, Marty Smith stated that Mr. Quinn mentioned a lot of the things that he wanted to talk about and there are a couple of comments that came up regarding vacancy rates. All and all, vacancy rates don’t mean anything on this property since there is a user that is self funded, just waiting to put the shovels in the ground and move ahead.

Mr. Smith stated that there were comments made earlier than residential should be protected from commercial and he does not understand that. Mr. Smith is a Planning Commissioner in his town and they believe residential should be intertwined with commercial. In the successful downtowns, the Birminghams, the Royal Oaks, the Ferndales, the Northvilles, the retail, commercial and residential are right on top of each other and it makes for a very vibrant community. If you separate them too far and people have to drive, they are not as successful. This project puts neighborhood retail, neighborhood commercial and neighborhood services closer to a lot of residential neighborhoods that are lacking those services and it will cut down on people going out of the town and possibly on traffic since people will not have to drive through the area to get to another shopping area. As far as the market studies, back in 1999, Novi’s own market study prior to the 2020 Master Plan for Land Use indicated that there is a significant shortage of grocery stores and other local type retail.

The Master Plan for Land Use includes new local retail sites for possible grocery stores and similar related development on the southeast corner of Ten Mile Road and Novi Road. In 2004, the Master Plan and Rezoning Committee voted in favor of a commercial project in this location. Then later in 2004, the applicant honored the City’s request to postpone their project for the redevelopment of the intersection of Ten Mile Road and Novi Road. In late 2007, Novi conducted another market study by the Chesapeake Group which is in Appendix F of Novi’s 2008 Master Plan for Land Use. It says that the retail activity with the greatest potential is associated with convenient shopping, including food purchases and grocery stores. It says the public would be enhanced by the development as many residents now make convenient purchases outside the area in which they live.

Mr. Smith said, in late 2008, Novi Ten Associates hired the same esteemed Chesapeake group to do another market study and that has been submitted several times to the Planning Commission over these last months. It states in there shopping demand is sufficient to support the activity of the noted proposed development of this site and is compatible with and supported by the findings of the previous report to the City as part of the City’s comprehensive plan update. Kroger has done a market study and without a doubt they believe their store will be hugely successful with the population as it stands now. They are not relying on growth. The houses, the residents, the apartments are there now for their store to be successful. Regarding the statistics of the site, the deviations and benefits, this project currently has tentative approvals from engineering regarding the detention, tentative approval by traffic with some minor comments, the wetland impact has disappeared, and the façade and fire department have approved the project. There are some technical issues to complete and that will be done as part of the site plan approval process. It’s not really related to the zoning. Planning, engineering, landscaping, and woodlands have some issues and that can be sorted out by going through the site plan approval.

Chair Pehrson asked Member Greco to read the correspondence into the record.

Letter sent to Planning Commission, Community Development Department and Consultants on August 18, 2010 from Edward Leininger, 24589 Hampton Court, Novi, MI 48375.

Dear Members,

The proposed rezoning and special land use permit is a major intrusion to the character of the City of Novi. The inventory of land use in the City is master planned to provide a balanced community. Retail zoning is plentiful with both successful and failed projects all around the city.

The land along Ten Mile Road, bounded by the railroad tracks and Novi Road is definitely a difficult piece of property to develop, but certainly NOT Commercial (B-3) uses.

The current Master Plan was very careful about this parcel as traffic from two major county roads service the area. With NO county funds and improvement plans to expand these roads it seems foolish to force more traffic on these already over burdened roads. Should you arbitrarily rezone this land to commercial, then no court in the area will ever uphold any other part of the City of Novi’s Master Plan in the future.

OSC may be the most logical land use with an internal road system with entry and exits on Novi Road only and right turn only entry and exit on Ten Mile Road. OSC allows for increased height (ideal for this property) and a mixed use of office, office services and light retail. But, even this type of development will require major road improvements on the bordering county roads.

The overlay option being used to consider this land use shouts of "contract zoning" as the City benefit is minuscule and calls for an increased burden on the City’s budget to maintain the fields and parking lots in the future.

We do not need more commercial to balance our land use in Novi, but we do need more office and light industrial business. OSC, OS-1 and OS-2 require the least amount of City services support and maintenance throughout the years.

Commercial is an easy decision especially in light of the depressed economy, but that is very short sighted.

How many more cars and trucks do you think Ten Mile Road and Novi Road can handle, even if you convince the county to complete the improvements to full build out? Note: I did not find a current widening project on the county plans anywhere for these roads.

Who is going to pay for the railroad crossing gates and expansion of the road over the tracks? Don’t use my tax dollars. Note: The railroad does not have any plans or money to improve the Ten Mile Road crossing.

An easy acronym to throw around as a negative. But YOU should consider what you would do if it was being proposed in YOUR backyard.

It is impossible to enter or exit the Meadowbrook Glens Subdivision and Novi Meadows Apartments complex and when the industrial building (Wisne Mfg.) is once again in business and Orchard Hills Subdivisions from 7 – 9 AM and 3 – 6 PM now. Over 400 homes in the Meadowbrook Glens Subdivision will be dramatically affected by your decision to arbitrarily change the zoning to B-3.

I have walked and studied this property many times and find it to have a unique topography that actually shouts high-end office and high tech R & D facilities. Terraced winding roadways and multi-level lots will make this property attractive to future premium uses. It does not say, fill and level for a Super Market.

Thank you for your time to review my thoughts and hopefully you will deny this request and consider other non-retail uses for this property as you study the master plan.

Best Regards,

Edward Leininger

34 year resident of Novi

Representative for the Homeowners Association of Meadowbrook Glens Subdivision

Former Novi City Councilman

Letter sent to the Members of the Planning Commission from Citizens of Meadowbrook Glens Subdivision on August 24, 2010 re: Proposed Development of Land, east of Novi Road, west of Meadowbrook Road.

The purpose of this memorandum is to express our concern over the proposed development of a former orchard that is east of Novi Road, west of Meadowbrook Road, and south of Ten Mile Road not far from the Walgreen’s Drug Store. The proposed development consists of a "Super Kroger" and some light industrial and office space.

The concerns over this project are many. First, we question the need for this development. There is a Kroger at Grand River Avenue and Beck Road, a Busch’s at Ten Mile Road and Meadowbrook Road and a proposed plan to bring a Walmart store to the Novi Town Center. We do not need another grocery store to compete with these stores with the potential of putting any one of them (mainly Busch’s) out of business. If this were to happen, we would have another vacant building, one of many unfortunately now in the City, to deal with.

Second, there are traffic concerns. Ten Mile Road is two lanes and cannot handle a large shopping center going in to cause more congestion. Widening the road may alleviate some of the issues, but it would still not deal with all the traffic concerns and would cause many more problems during construction. During the school year, Ten Mile Road is a major thoroughfare for buses traveling to the high school, Novi Meadows, the Middle School and various elementary schools. Having a large shopping center in this location would add to an already stressed traffic area, especially at the end of the day, regardless of how wide the road is.

Third, there is the issue of proper city planning. Members of the Planning Commission should consider what kind of a city we want to have. Do we want a city that has some green space or do we want one that has endless strip malls with stores that often go out of business and then create eyesores for the community to deal with? If another development is needed, the City should consider what existing vacancies we have and put new development there. The Novi Town Center has much potential, yet it consists of numerous vacant store fronts. The Main Street area has numerous vacancies as well. A small grocery store went in on the corner of Meadowbrook Road and Grand River Avenue, only to go out of business and stand empty with a lease sign in front of it. If another grocery store, small retail outlets, and light industrial areas are needed, consider putting them where the development already is. This would be a win/win situation as blight would be reduced from the City and we would be revitalizing areas that need it.

Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to voice our concerns over this project. We hope that these issues will be taken into account when a final decision is made and that you will update us on the status of this proposed development.

Diane Jamrog, 24614 Hampton Hill, Novi, MI 48375

Barb & Dan Phelps, 24548 Hampton Hill, Novi, MI 48375

Robert & Pauline Riley, 24602 Hampton Hill, Novi, MI 48375

Edward Leininger, 24589 Hampton Court, Novi, MI 48375

Beth Covery, 41951 Park Ridge, Novi, MI 48375

Anita Parker, 24724 Highlands, Novi, MI 48375

Alice Morgan, 24581 Hampton Court, Novi, MI 48375

Lisa A. Engels, 24536 Hampton Hill, Novi, MI 48375

Chair Pehrson turned the matter over to the Planning Commission for their consideration.

Member Baratta asked if City Landscape Architect David Beschke and Wetland Consultant Dr. John Freeland could come forward and answer some questions.

Wetland Consultant Freeland stated that he had received a revised plan with additional information regarding wetlands as well as additional information regarding the depiction of the regulated woodland boundary on the property. As far as the proposed wetland impacts go, the wetland impacts have not disappeared, but they have been somewhat minimized to an area below a quarter of an acre, with a quarter of an acre being the threshold requiring mitigation. The woodland issues are basically unchanged compared to the June Planning Commission meeting. The woodland issue is not as trivial as correcting an item on a drawing. There will be very substantial woodland impacts associated with this project. According to a count provided to ECT, the number of regulated trees may be as high as 771 trees and that number will have to be clarified and field checked in the event the project goes to preliminary site plan. In order to build the entire infrastructure associated with this project many trees will have to be taken down.

Member Baratta then asked Mr. Quinn if the project was rushed.

Mr. Quinn stated that the project was started in 2004 and he couldn’t say the project was rushed.

Member Baratta stated that he does not believe it was rushed and he agrees with Mr. Quinn’s characterization. Member Baratta does not believe that anyone is receiving special treatment and the Planning Commission looks at a project as a project and is it good for the City, irrespective who represents it. From Member Baratta’s standpoint, when he reviews this project, and he is sure he speaks for the rest of the Commission, the Planning Commission looks at each project and the benefit it provides to the City and the citizens. There was an issue brought up in prior presentations regarding the Kroger’s and possibly closing the store at Beck Road and Grand River Avenue. Member Baratta had an opportunity to look at the way Kroger deployed their stores in targeted markets and some of the other grocery stores and from what he has seen, this is a classic deployment strategy for a grocery retailer. Member Baratta does not believe they are going to close the Grand River Avenue store and Kroger has made that representation several times.

Member Baratta stated that he still had an issue with the traffic and wondered what the applicant was proposing to do to alleviate the traffic generated by this shopping center.

Mr. Quinn indicated that there will be road improvements from the railroad track to Novi Road and there is going to be a center turn lane added that will be provided, instead of the required acceleration lanes and deceleration lanes. In addition, if in fact the traffic warrants require a traffic signal to go at the Kroger entranceway, the traffic signal will be placed. As far as the traffic is concerned, according to the City’s traffic consultant and the completed Traffic Impact Study, there will have to be some timing changes at the intersection of Ten Mile Road and Novi Road. It will have to be coordinated with the new traffic signal. People will also be able to use that interior road instead of going out and using Ten Mile Road and Novi Road. The other thing to remember about the traffic is that if this is developed as industrial with a 200,000 plus square foot industrial building and a 100,000 square foot office building and the morning and afternoon peak associated with that kind of development would be tremendous. When you bring in a Kroger store and retail, there is basically little early morning peak traffic and there are people coming and going all day long and there is not a big influx in the morning like there would be with an industrial development and the same way at 5:00pm.

Member Baratta asked who is paying for the road improvements and the traffic signal.

Mr. Quinn answered the applicant would be paying for those improvements as a public benefit.

Member Baratta stated the Planning Commission has seen this project many times and has talked about all the issues, or a great number of issues in great detail and the petitioners have answered the Planning Commission’s comments over several presentations. Member Baratta would recommend approval of the project and but would like to give the other Planning Commissioners an opportunity to speak before he makes a motion.

Member Meyer asked City Traffic Consultant Arroyo to come forward and reiterate what Mr. Quinn just said or at least give the Planning Commission his perspective on impacts to the peak hour traffic. Member Meyer wanted to know if additional lanes along Ten Mile Road are planned.

City Traffic Consultant Arroyo answered one of the items that was mentioned in the traffic review letter on page four dealt with the inclusion of an additional westbound through lane serving the center and east driveway which would enable the signal timing, if a signal is put at the center driveway, to better serve and provide a higher level of service to that intersection and potentially shorten the queues that are heading westbound that could potentially impact the railroad tracks. The applicant has not provided that improvement and it is not being proposed at this time. There were some significant delays that were being proposed at that drive and there is also a concern regarding the Ten Mile Road westbound queues. There are many improvements that are being proposed as part of this development but that does not necessarily mean there will be a perfect level of service everywhere. The other question dealt with the comparison of light industrial and office. That is addressed in the traffic review letter as well. Mr. Quinn is correct in terms of the a.m. peak hour that industrial and office would generate substantially more traffic than retail. Generally the a.m. peak hour occurs sometime between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and most retail stores are not open at that time. The comparison that was evaluated in the applicant’s traffic impact study shows that the shopping center would generate about close to 150 a.m. peak hour trips and a combination of light industrial and medical office would generate about 458 a.m. peak hour trips and light industrial with general office would generate 467 a.m. peak hour trips. During the p.m. peak hour, it goes the other direction in that the shopping center would generate more p.m. peak hour trips than the light industrial and medical office with the shopping center generating 830 driveway trips.

Member Meyer then stated that Mr. Quinn mentioned that there might be several tire companies in one area or several restaurants where the competition is healthy. I do truly believe that competition holds a key place here. If the City is going to be a City that is business friendly, City officials have to at least hear people out and make their decision. Member Meyer noted Environmental Consultant Freeland stated many trees would need to be removed in order to construct this project. It seems many trees have been taken down in this City for all sorts of developments and those trees are replaced.

Member Meyer asked Environmental Consultant Freeland what the process would be if the applicant were to remove the trees on this site.

Environmental Consultant Freeland answered the City has a Woodland Ordinance and it is strictly a local ordinance and not a state program. The first choice for the replacement of impacts to regulated woodlands is to replace trees on site. It doesn’t appear very many trees would be able to be put back on this site because much of the undeveloped site is already woodland. In lieu of replacing the trees, the Ordinance allows for payment into the Tree Fund. At this time, it amounts to at least $400 per tree credit and the credits are graduated according to the diameter of the tree that is cut down. Again, exact numbers are not ready at this time, but Dr. Freeland would estimate approximately 1,000 tree credits would be required if this site were developed. Compared to other projects Dr. Freeland has seen in Novi, not very many have had such a large woodland impact.

Member Larson asked Mr. Quinn what the hours of operation would be for the Kroger store.

Mr. Quinn stated that the Kroger store will not be a 24 hour store and the hours of operation will be from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

Member Lynch asked for some clarification from Traffic Consultant Arroyo. Member Lynch looked at the traffic review letter. Eventually this site will be developed with something, be it industrial, office, retail, etc. and Member Lynch is concerned with the traffic impacts. In reading the traffic review, it appears traffic will be less impacted by a retail development than an industrial development during the peak hours.

Traffic Consultant Arroyo responded it depends on which peak hour someone is looking at. During the morning peak hour, an office or industrial development would have more of an impact and during the p.m. peak hour a retail development would have more of an impact.

Member Lynch asked if the additional lane is going to mitigate much of the impact.

Traffic Consultant Arroyo stated that the improvements that the applicant is proposing are certainly going to mitigate to a certain extent some of the impact. It doesn’t mean it is going to fully mitigate the impacts, but it is going to mitigate the impacts to a certain extent.

Member Lynch stated he understood that the site would eventually be developed and whatever development occurred would cause traffic impacts. Member Lynch’s personal feeling says that a Kroger needs to be there. Member Lynch thinks that the east siders of Novi do not get the same benefit as the people in the west. By looking at the analysis on how the Kroger stores are set up, it seems this store will be similar to the existing store at Grand River Avenue and Beck Road but less intense. Member Lynch is struggling with the traffic. It sounds like a lot can be mitigated with the additional lane the applicant is proposing.

Member Lynch said he is envisioning in his mind that traffic is so backed up that someone is stuck in the middle of the tracks. Member Lynch is wondering if this goes industrial, would that possibility still exist?

Traffic Consultant Arroyo answered that it is very difficult to answer that question without knowing the configuration of the site and a lot of it would depend on, for example, the fact that the office generates more traffic per square foot, particularly medical office. If there was more medical office, it would likely increase the impact and increase the likelihood of the need for more of those improvements. Also, the timing of the development would be important. Will there be background growth that will impact that as well? It is difficult to give a precise answer.

Member Lynch stated he did not see a significant difference in traffic impacts between the development of the site as industrial or office and the development of the site as retail. The traffic will probably be similar to the traffic at Beck Road and Grand River Avenue. Sometimes people will have to wait at a light.

Traffic Consultant Arroyo stated that the traffic light is absolutely critical to the operation of this site.

Member Lynch asked if the applicant is going to put in the traffic light.

Mr. Arroyo answered yes, subject to approval from the City and RCOC.

Member Lynch stated that he would like to see any tree removed from the property put back on that property. Even though the tree fund is a good thing, the people in the area are used to seeing those trees in that location and Member Lynch would rather not see the replacement trees put elsewhere.

Environmental Consultant Freeland stated with the proposed site layout and the fact that most of the site is regulated woodland, he did not see a lot of room to put replacement trees on the property. There may be some gaps in the woodland and there may be a few opportunities for replacement on-site and that is something that would be evaluated during the Preliminary Site Plan review.

Member Lynch stated that he hoped that the trees could somehow be kept on the site, primarily by the residential areas. Member Lynch has seen cases previously where an applicant has put the trees in the tree fund and this does not do the people in the area any good.

Environmental Consultant Freeland stated that he doubted the applicant could replace anywhere near 700 or more trees back on the parcel. In addition to woodland replacement trees, there may be requirements for landscape trees which are a separate part of the ordinance. Landscape Architect Beschke may be able to comment on that and that may allay some of the Planning Commission’s concerns of having an area devoid of trees.

Member Lynch stated that he did not want to take an area that is kind of forested now and just thin it out.

Member Lynch said that he felt the City owes it to the people that live in that area to try to make the minimal amount of change to the aesthetics of the area. The traffic issues are still a concern and Member Lynch hopes that somehow and someway traffic impacts could be minimized. Member Lynch asked Mr. Quinn if as many trees as possible will be left on the site.

Mr. Quinn stated that certainly, as far as the trees, it doesn’t behoove the applicant to take trees down that do not have to be taken down. It is better to transplant as many trees as possible on site. The figure for this proposed site plan is 53% open space after development. Mr. Weiss also owns all of the property to the south to the Ice Arena and along the railroad track. It seems there should be places to put new trees in that whole area and that would be on the south side where the Chapman Creek goes through there. That is all going to be looked at in the site plan review process.

Member Lynch stated that the point he was making was that he is not a big supporter of the tree fund. He would like to see the trees stay on that property or that area so the people in the area could get the benefit from it.

Mr. Quinn told Member Lynch that he looked forward to being back in front of the Planning Commission when the project goes through site plan approval process.

Member Lynch thinks this is a good development for this site and a benefit to the east side that they do not have right now. Competition is good and the mere development of this site will be good and the right thing to do.

Member Gutman stated that he was in favor of this use and from an economic standpoint, it is a positive thing for the City of Novi and he appreciates all of the additional public benefits. Member Gutman appreciates the work that the applicant has done to allay all of the Planning Commission’s fears. It has been a long process and Member Gutman will be looking forward to supporting Member Baratta’s motion.

Member Greco stated that like Member Meyer had indicated earlier, this vote is significant and important and the Planning Commissioners have all taken this project and the decision on the Master Plan very seriously and realized they are two separate issues. The Planning Commission can talk about studies and what studies say and what they make inferences about and what may happen in the future and what may not happen in the future. But, studies are not really a substitute for people and the only people who have commented are the residents who have indicated that they do not feel the need for a store. The Planning Commission has not heard from any specific residents that say, I’m glad that there is a Kroger going in down the block from me, only the opposite has been stated. If this store is built, people will come, but that does not necessarily mean that there needs to be a Kroger there when there is a Hiller’s and Kroger nearby. As far as consumers, competition is good for consumers in terms of pricing and quality, but as a body, the Planning Commission is not a marketing body. When there are two banks across from each other, or two tire stores, and a CVS and Walgreens across from each other, Member Greco looks at it as a waste for the members of the community that it is not spread out more among the community. The reason those are there is not because the planners planned this for their community. The reason why it’s there is for marketing strategies, for businesses to put each other out of business.

Member Greco stated that the work the applicant has done is good as far as the presentation and everything they’ve done but Member Greco does not believe it is needed or necessary in that area. There are enough grocery opportunities around the community. It would be silly for the City to plan for two similar services to be across the street from one another and the only reason they end up there is because the City has no choice. Member Greco may be recommending denial of this project.

Member Cassis stated that he has talked about this project for the last three or four sessions and has talked about it at the Committee level. Other members of the Planning Commission have said the City is engineering something for the surrounding community and the City has no right to decide for them whether they want a store there or do not want a store there. Member Cassis sometimes visits the Kroger at Maple Road and Telegraph Road when he visits family in the area. That store was in business and then two months later, it went out of business.

Member Cassis asked Mr. Ragsdale, the Kroger representative, if he was familiar with the Kroger store at Maple Road and Telegraph Road.

Mr. Ragsdale answered yes, he was.

Member Cassis asked if the store was closed.

Mr. Ragsdale answered yes, it is.

Member Cassis asked about the West Oaks Kroger store, what happened to it?

Mr. Ragsdale stated that it was closed and he explained why it was closed the last time this matter was before the Planning Commission.

Member Cassis asked Mr. Ragsdale if he had in his possession any guarantee that he can give the Planning Commission as an affidavit notarized that this Kroger or the Kroger on Beck Road will not be closed.

Mr. Ragsdale stated no and there is not a retailer in the United States of America that could make that guarantee. If they do Mr. Ragsdale would say they are not being honest and forthright with what they have to say. Kroger does have plans to invest money in the store at Beck Road and Grand River Avenue and they wouldn’t be doing that if the store were planning to close soon.

Member Cassis asked Mr. Ragsdale if he had any figures to indicate the sales have improved and gone up at the Beck Road store in the last five years.

Mr. Ragsdale said he could not give Member Cassis any figures, but the store is doing well enough to consider future investments in the store.

Member Cassis stated that the Community Development Department said no to this project and they have examined it and they have made their recommendation. In 2001 the Master Plan did say designated to be studied further; however, there was one quotation that said commercial is not recommended. In 2007, the Chesapeake Group said the City currently has a surplus of retail until 2018. The City’s Economic Development Director wrote a long exhaustive study where he clearly states that the City does not need any retail in this area. He quoted many people in a big meeting of retailers, supermarket people, planners, some 500 people in that area said retail is going down and that stores are being shut down and going out of business. Traffic Consultant Arroyo gave a very honest review of the Traffic Study and he clearly says that there are difficulties in that area for this huge retail development. If the Kroger does go in, how long will people have to wait in traffic with a backup? Member Cassis did get the map with all the different supermarkets in the area and there is no guarantee that all those stores will stay there. Kroger has a propensity to move stores around. Another thing, do you know how large Walmart is? The applicant says competition is healthy. When a Walmart comes to town, small businesses go to the meeting to oppose it and the applicant is saying competition is healthy. What about the woodlands and the 770 trees to be cut down. Haven’t enough trees been cut down in this community? According to the school district, the district is losing students because the City is losing population. Is this a growing community that there is a need for two Krogers and a Walmart within three or four miles? Many residents have had homes foreclosed. If the population is decreasing why would another Kroger store be needed? The answer was given to the Planning Commission by staff. The City’s Economic Development Director said to halt it, do not go ahead, there is surplus. The Planning Commission should not approve this project.

Chair Pehrson stated that he wanted everyone to realize that the reason the Planning Commission is here is because the City is business friendly. This is not just an exercise to make people go through hoops. The citizens do care about the community. The Planning Commission hears from passionate people about their community and how it is going to impact their future. If the Planning Commission were to ask Mr. Quinn directly if this was a business friendly city, hopefully his answer would be yes.

None of the citizens have ever lived in these kinds of economic times and no one has ever had the opportunity to witness the kind of economic downturn the country is currently in. The competition that people insist upon is very fragile at this point in time. Chair Pehrson is not 100% sure that the Planning Commission would be doing the right thing approving this project. It would be detrimental to other businesses that are still trying right now to survive. Maybe if this were 2001, if this were 1990 or ten years ago when this was first conceived, there would probably be a thriving business sitting there right now.

Chair Pehrson is not 100% convinced that this is the right location for a couple of points. Chair Pehrson’s habits of purchasing groceries aren’t affiliated to one brand or to one store. It is a matter of location and convenience. It’s not to go out and find that one particular store and that is part of the problem with this particular location. There will always be traffic no matter what is done. Member Lynch was right by saying that this will be developed one day and it may be developed with a Kroger on it. The applicant has every right to come before the Planning Commission and the City Council and state their case and plead their arguments and have people deliberate at this level, people deliberate at the City Council and the ZBA. This is what people in the audience and the people in the City need to understand, that anyone that owns property can come before the City and ask for certain things.

Utilizing the PRO option extends the applicant the opportunity to overcome some of the hurdles relative to the site itself because some of the things people are trying to develop these days are a little bit more difficult and are not wide open spaces. They do require tree cuts and curb-cuts; there is no perfect piece of land anymore inside the City.

In this case, there are more negatives then positives, relative to sewers, lane changes, etc. The traffic is still going to be an issue. There have been some statements made that are a little bit skewed. The building to the east of this site, the industrial building that has been shut down for ten years has not been shut down for ten years. It was open as recently as 2008 and Chair Pehrson was a member at that company at that time in 2008. Some of the data placed in front of the Planning Commission whether it’s surveys by City staff or the applicant gets a little bit skewed.

Chair Pehrson remembers from the previous presentation that 78% of the members that were surveyed would love to shop at a Kroger based on a sample size of about 72-75 people. That is not a statistical summary that is valid. Chair Pehrson is also concerned about the phasing of the project relative to the other retail outlets. How can the City be assured that with each new tenant being brought onto the site that it would be someone like Kroger who had the money, had the backing, had the willingness and had the desire to make the commitment? That would be great, but Chair Pehrson can envision a Kroger being surrounded by buildings that have those for lease signs in them for quite a period of time.

The Planning Commission is not out to try to take away from the tax base or turn away business. That is not what the City is about here. The Planning Commission is trying to seek what is best for this particular piece of property. The Kroger building might be the best solution for the property, but it is just too large of a building when the impacts to woodlands and wetlands are considered. That is always something that gets swept under the rug. One of the things that this Commission has been pretty steadfast on is looking at the size relative to what is going on on that particular piece of property. This proposal is just a little bit too big.

Chair Pehrson appreciates the effort that has gone forward on everyone’s part to bring this to this point today from the Planning Division and the applicant, Mr. Quinn and the people at Kroger. Chair Pehrson hopes there is some common ground to be able to demonstrate the City’s business friendliness to the applicant, even though he is not 100% sure in which way he is going to vote or what the vote will be at this particular time.

Chair Pehrson then asked City Attorney Schultz for his comments.

City Attorney Schultz had a question in advance of a motion. Looking at this from the perspective of writing the PRO Agreement and the list of PRO conditions that go along with that, City Attorney Schultz is wondering whether or not the motion or the applicant is addressing the other area of rezoning, the frontage along Ten Mile Road for which he hasn’t seen or heard any conditions. From the staff’s perspective, if it is just a rezoning with no conditions, then the Planning Commission probably should talk about what the applicant expects, just a straight rezoning with no conditions or whether there is some other plan on the part of the Planning Commission on dealing with those areas in the future. Right now, looking at the draft motion, it does not appear that area, which is about five acres of frontage, has been addressed.

Chair Pehrson asked Mr. Quinn if he could help us understand what City Attorney Schultz stated.

Mr. Quinn told City Attorney Schultz that they would have to go back in the original application. Phase I of this project includes all of the improvements along Ten Mile Road including all the landscaping. It includes the driveways that are on the east side of the property and the access road from Novi Road. The outlots are being constructed as a general condominium and those outlots have not been properly sized. They are to be constructed after the first three phases and the infrastructure is to be put in with the first phase.

City Attorney Schultz stated that the PRO process normally affords the City some ability to say what they like and don’t like. However, there are no site layouts or building layouts provided for the area labeled future phases. Staff is assuming that if there isn’t going to be a discussion about the buildings or site layouts in the future phases, then it should somehow be indicated they are not addressed and at a minimum, will need to be included as future amendments to the PRO Agreement.

Mr. Quinn stated that City Attorney Schultz is absolutely right. It has been the applicant’s plan to show the outlots in the area labeled for future phases within the rezoned B-2 area with the PRO on them. The applicant agrees that whenever the time to develop that area comes, the PRO Agreement would need to be amended.

City Attorney Schultz said the key is that a PRO Plan is what would be amended, not an approved site plan; essentially it would be a series of additional PRO Agreements.

Moved by Member Baratta and seconded by Member Lynch:

3. CVS, 43600 GEN-MAR, SP10-33

Consideration of the request of CVS Pharmacy for Preliminary Site Plan and Storm Water Management Plan approval. The subject property is located at 43600 Gen-Mar Drive, west of Novi Road and south of the CSX Railroad, in the I-1, Light Industrial district, in Section 23. The subject property is 7.16 acres. The applicant is proposing to add about 7900 square feet of office within an existing warehouse building and add 21 net parking spaces.

Planner Spencer stated that the applicant, CVS Pharmacy is proposing to add about 7,900 square feet of office space within their recently purchased warehouse. They are also proposing to build 21 additional parking spaces to serve the new office areas. Typically this minor type of expansion could be administratively approved, but the applicant is proposing parking in front of the building and to use one of the Zoning Ordinance’s parking space requirement alternatives and both require Planning Commission approval.

The parcel is located on the north side of Gen-Mar Drive, west of Novi Road and south of the CSX Railroad. There is a cement plant to the north and to the east, south and west there are light industrial and warehouse uses, including the CVS warehouse.