Meeting called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Planning Director David Evancoe.

PRESENT: Members Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague.

ABSENT/EXCUSED: Member Paul

ALSO PRESENT: Planning Director David Evancoe, City Attorney Tom Schultz, Staff Planner Beth Brock, Planner Barbara McBeth, City Engineer Nancy McClain, Landscape Architect Lauren McGuire, Planning/Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Senior Environmental Specialist Aimee Kay

David Evancoe, Planning Director announced that Tom Schultz would direct the election of officers.

Tom Schultz, City Attorney indicated that the Commission needed to appoint a temporary Chairperson prior to the election of officers. The temporary Chairperson would conduct the election of officers beginning with the election of Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and Secretary.

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Kocan, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To nominate Member Nagy as Acting Chairperson.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Shroyer, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To nominate Member Nagy as Chairperson, Member Markham as Vice-Chair and Member Kocan as Secretary.

Acting Chairperson Nagy asked if there were any further nominations. Hearing none, she called for the vote.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Chairperson Nagy asked if there were any additions or changes to the Agenda.

Member Markham added Matters for Discussion Item #1 – Planning Commission Packet Content and Matters for Discussion Item #2 – Façade Ordinance.

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Kocan, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the agenda as amended.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

None

None

None

None

Consideration of the request of Mike Shammami of SAF Management, for approval of a one-year Preliminary Site Plan extension. The subject project is located in Section 13 on the south side of Twelve Mile Road between Haggerty and Meadowbrook Roads. The applicant proposes a 91 room hotel and guest suites on 2.32 acres. The property is zoned OST.

Consideration of the request of Ted Minasian of Minasian Development Corporation, for approval of a one-year Final Site Plan extension. The subject project is located in Section 14 on the west side of Meadowbrook Road, between Eleven and Twelve Mile Roads. The applicant proposes a professional office building on 7.98acres. The property is zoned OST.

Chairperson Nagy announced there were two (2) items on the Consent Agenda. She asked if there were any additions or changes to the Agenda.

Member Shroyer removed Holiday Inn Express SP01-17 from the Consent Agenda and placed as Item #6 under Matter for Consideration.

PM-02-07-143 Approval of the Consent Agenda granting Beechforest SP99-30 a one-year Final Site Plan extension and with the amendment to remove Holiday Inn Express SP01-17 from the Consent Agenda and place it as Item #6 under Matters for Consideration.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Markham, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: Approval of the Consent Agenda granting Beechforest SP99-30 a one-year Final Site Plan extension and with the amendment to remove Holiday Inn Express SP01-17 from the Consent Agenda and place it as Item #6 under Matters for Consideration.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Public Hearing on the request of Bryan Monaghan of Cingular Wireless for recommendation to City Council for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan and Special Land Use Permit. The subject property is located in Section 1, west of the M-5 Freeway at 40800 West 13 Mile Road. The developer proposes a 130' cellular stealth antenna tower and an accompanying 12 x 12 shelter. The 102.46 acre site is zoned R-A.

Member Ruyle requested to be recused from the matter because he initiated the proposal of the cell tower at Brightmoor Tabernacle Church.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Shroyer, CARRIED (7-0)*: To recuse Member Ruyle from participating in the matter of Cingular Wireless Stealth Cellular Antenna Facility SP02-21.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Chairperson Nagy announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the matter to the Public.

Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing and turned the matter over to the Barbara McBeth, Planner for the presentation.

Barbara McBeth, Planner introduced the request of Bryan Monaghan for Cingular Wireless for a recommendation to City Council for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan and Special Land Use Permit. The subject property is located in the northeast part of the City of Novi in Section 1, west of the M-5 Freeway and north of Thirteen Mile Road. The developer proposes a 130-foot tall cellular stealth antenna tower and an accompanying 12-foot by 12-foot shelter. The proposed lease area is part of the 102.46-acre parcel owned by Brightmoor Christian Church and School. The lease area consists of 0.056 acres of land. The site is zoned R-A, Residential Acreage, as is the land immediately around the proposed lease area, to the north, west and south. Further to the west, the land is zoned RM-1, Low Density multiple Family, and is under construction with the Erickson, Fox Run development. To the east, across the M-5 freeway, the land is zoned OST, Office Service Technology. She indicated that there is a rezoning proposed. The Planning Department is in receipt of a request to rezone the north part of the church’s property to multiple family residential. The rezoning request’s southern boundary is approximately 700-feet to the north of the proposed cell tower. The lease area is currently undeveloped land. Immediately to the north and south of the lease area the land is also undeveloped. To the west of the lease site, the property is developed with the Brightmoor Church and School. To the east, and across the M-5 freeway, the property is undeveloped. The request of the petitioner is to erect a 130-foot tall cellular tower monopole in the form of a cross as shown in the submitted pictures, and an associated equipment shelter is also proposed and will have a brick face on all four sides. The applicant is proposing a driveway from the back of the Brightmoor Church and School parking lot. A six-foot high chain link fence is proposed around the proposed equipment shelter and monopole. One parking space is proposed and a turn-around space for the vehicles is provided for the occasional vehicle, which needs to access the site. The following items are brought to the Planning Commission’s attention as a result of the staff and consultants review of the plans. 1) The Planning Review indicated that approval of the Special Land Use and Preliminary Site Plan cannot be recommended. The applicant does not provide all required information specified in the Zoning Ordinance for Special Land Use approval. Reading from the Planning Report, "the City’s Wireless Communications Analysis and Recommendations Final Report and the City’s Zoning Ordinance requires co-location on existing structures. The Detroit Edison Corridor east of M-5 is identified in the report as a preferred co-location opportunity. According to the applicant’s attorney, the Detroit Edison co-location is not an option due to indemnification issues. However, other competitors have been able to co-locate on the Edison Towers in this same corridor." The Planning consultant recommends that the City’s Attorney review this information to determine whether this issue should be sufficient to preclude them from co-location on the Detroit Edison towers when other competitors in the same industry have located on these towers. 2) The Planner’s review letter indicates that the applicant has failed to address whether a combination of co-location alternatives could be used to cover gaps in the radio frequency coverage. The Planning Consultant suggested the applicant consider looking at a combination of co-locations on structures in the area, such as the existing Brightmoor Church, and adjacent Erickson Retirement buildings, which are to be constructed. 3) There are limitations of the proposed stealth design of this tower, which permits only one additional co-location opportunity. If this facility is approved with limited co-location availability, the Planning Consultant questions whether it could increase the potential for another structure in the same area for other carriers. 4) If the new structure is ultimately determined to be warranted by the City to meet federal law, then the issue of location in the adjacent OST district across the M-5, which the Applicant indicated is a feasible location as opposed to the residential location on the Church property (as proposed) should be addressed by the City. 5) The Consultant has cited the section of the ordinance that states that the City Council must determine, after a recommendation from the Planning Commission, that the location, size and character of the proposed facility will be compatible with the zoning district in which it is located. 6) The consultant has also cited the ordinance, stating that, the City Council, after receiving a recommendation from the Planning Commission, must determine that co-location on an existing site is not feasible. Review of the request must also consider whether denial of a request will have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. The Wetlands review revealed minor comments to be addressed on the Final Site Plan. The Woodlands review indicated that a Woodland Affidavit must be submitted indicating there will be no impact to woodlands. The Landscaping and Engineering reviews revealed that minor comments need to be addressed on the Final Site Plan. The Traffic Engineering, Façade and Fire reviews all indicated that the plan met ordinance requirements.

Bryan Monaghan represented Cingular Wireless and introduced PB Kath, Director of the Radio Frequency Engineering, John Romsik Radio Frequency Engineering, Dave Torma of Professional Engineering and Robin Talano of Brightmoor Christian Church. He indicated that there has been a gap in the area for Cingular Wireless for a lengthy period of time, which stretches the entire length of Thirteen Mile Road from Haggerty to Novi Road and up to Fourteen Mile Road and down to Twelve Mile Road. He explained the color coding on his diagram. Green is acceptable coverage for technical needs and the operation of the company within the FCC guidelines. Blue is marginal coverage. Red is completely unacceptable. A stray call might get through the red area if there is a low capacity use at any given time. However, in most cases the red area is practically unusable area for radio frequency. In order to fill the red area, he indicated an antenna of sufficient height is needed to accept and forward the radio frequency signal. He indicated the Brightmoor site would allow Cingular Wireless to cover the entire area, primarily Thirteen Mile Road and along the M-5. He informed the Commission of the efforts to find alternative sites prior to this submission. The Brightmoor Church roof is problematic, which would have an antenna flush mounted with the roof so that it would not extend above the roofline. He indicated that this would be consistent with the Ordinance Requirements. An antenna at this location would provide decent coverage along Thirteen Mile Road in a limited area in front of the church to Haggerty Road. However, it would not fill any of the gap to the west primarily because the church is only 45-feet tall and the hill it sits on is primarily to the southwest. The Planning Staff directed his attention to the Existing City Property section of the Wireless Committee Report, which has not yet been adopted. The Fire Station property, located on Thirteen Mile Road and east of Novi Road, would sufficiently cover Walled Lake. However, it would not cover the M-5 area or Haggerty Road. He noted that the Fire Station property is an extremely small parcel surrounded with residential, which would have fall zoned issues. Thereby, making it impossible to have any measurable setback. Another consideration was an existing cell tower, owned by American Tower Corporation, is located on Fourteen Mile and Haggerty Road. The location is too far to the northeast and blends with existing coverage already established on an existing site. This location would not provide any coverage on Thirteen Mile Road. The Novi City Park located directly south of Walled Lake was also a consideration. The issues entailed selecting an optimal location on a hill. Again, this location would provide coverage to Walled Lake and the areas to the south. However, it would not provide coverage for the core of the area that the proposed is attempting to cover, which is Thirteen Mile Road, M-5 and as far over to Haggerty Road as possible. Lastly, the office park located directly east of M-5 and south of Thirteen Mile Road was a consideration. He stated this site was feasible. However, as noted in the application, while the office park location meets the technical requirements and covers the primary crucial issues of the gap, it is not a "homerun". It was decided to proceed with the existing cell tower application because of its stealth character. He referenced Section 2508.1(b)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance, which states that consideration will be given to applications, which present a creative solution to proliferation of antenna towers. He indicated that this is Cingular’s proposal. There is a need and a proposal of a location that would completely satisfy the need. The stealth configuration of a cross-tower on the church property is consistent with the current use of that property while limiting the visual impact of a monopole antenna tower. For these reasons, it was determined to proceed with the Brightmoor Christian Church location. However, the office park remains a fall back location. He noted the corridor of existing Detroit Edison Towers. Cingular Wireless has a legal problem with Detroit Edison in terms of executing a lease. He explained that when a lease is executed to place an antenna on an existing Detroit Edison Tower, Detroit Edison has employees who are exclusively committed to working on the towers. Cingular Wireless employees are not allowed to mount, repair or otherwise monitor the antenna. Detroit Edison utilizes the workers compensation for its employees and Cingular Wireless employees would not have this medical coverage for injuries. Detroit Edison would not agree to have joint coverage for Cingular Wireless employees. Although Detroit Edison signs lease agreements with many other companies, he was not willing to place his employees at risk. Mr. Monaghan believed his proposal met the intent of the Ordinance to find a creative solution.

Chairperson Nagy advised Mr. Schultz that it is appropriate to address the legal issues now.

Mr. Schultz clarified if she was referring to the Applicant’s statement(s) regarding Edison.

Chairperson Nagy answered, correct.

Mr. Schultz advised that although the planning review letter indicated this is an issue for the City Attorney to determine, he declared it is an issue for the Planning Commission to decide. The Ordinance is designed to give the Planning Commission the permission to make discretionary land use decisions. He advised the Commission to keep in mind the Federal Telecommunications Act, which states: 1) the Federal government likes communication towers and 2) local planning commissions and municipalities can regulate placement of those towers so long as it does not interfere with providing wireless services to their customers. One standard, in the Ordinance the City has adopted to regulate, has a clear indication that the City prefers there to be co-location, if it is reasonably feasible. The Applicant determined the failure to reach an agreement with Edison is based on Cingular Wireless’ exposure for liability. He advised the Commission to determine if it was enough information to make a decision of whether or not Cingular Wireless should work with Edison to get a better location. The representative pointed out that there are many antennas on Edison Towers throughout southeastern Michigan. There arguably could be some legal ramifications, however, Mr. Schultz’ initial reaction upon reading the letter was that Cingular Wireless is probably insurable. He assumed that other leasing companies may have taken this detail into account. He questioned if Cingular Wireless had antennas on other Edison Towers elsewhere in southeastern Michigan or other locations. The Commission should derive questions to determine if the proponent has given enough information to let them out of the obvious location choice that other cellular tower companies use all the time. Mr. Schultz advised the Commission that the decision was at their discretion and it was also at their discretion to determine if there is enough information to make that decision tonight.

Chairperson Nagy asked Mr. Evancoe if he had any comments.

Mr. Evancoe answered, no.

Chairperson Nagy turned the matter over to the Commission for discussion.

Member Shroyer asked Mr. Schultz if the design of the tower would fall under the Sign Ordinance. The signage packet defines it as a sign as it symbolizes a religious-type of organization or affiliation in that area. He wanted to ensure that it is reviewed properly under the City Ordinances.

Mr. Schultz did not recall an instance where there was an issue with towers placed in crosses of religious uses. He found Member Shroyer’s inquiry legitimate and wanted to do research prior to giving a definite answer.

Member Shroyer asked Mr. Monaghan if he considered the Staff suggestion of possibly placing a structure on top of one of the Erickson Retirement buildings.

Mr. Monaghan answered, no. He stated that he was not aware of what Erickson is developing. If Erickson were to construct a 65-foot or 70-foot building then it would be possible. However, if the Erickson buildings are the same height as the church, the same technical problems would exist. He pointed out that there would be a zoning issue, as one property is zoned R-A (Residential Acreage) and RM-1 (Low-Density, Multiple-Family Residential District). The cellular tower use is permitted in the R-A District with a Special Land Use Permit, however it is prohibited in RM-1. Therefore, there is a rezoning issue.

Member Shroyer asked Ms. McBeth to comment. He verified that Erickson is developing a 65-foot 5-story building.

Ms. McBeth answered, correct. It is approximately 65-feet tall.

Member Shroyer indicated that Erickson is a possibility that has not been exhausted. He asked Mr. Monaghan why the tower is designed to allow only one other co-location. The City is recommending multiple use locations and obviously desires to limit the number of towers. The City is making efforts to place the utilities underground, ridding of the ugly telephone pole. Therefore, in keeping with the City’s intent, he did not understand why there would be an erection of towers throughout the City.

Mr. Monaghan explained the stealth design has a structure limitation of one other co-locator. The standard monopole can carry four and up to six platforms; however, he found the visual impact of the stealth design to be more of an asset to the Novi Community. The antenna is located inside of the stealth design and occupies thirty to forty feet inside the structure as opposed to only ten feet on the outside.

Member Shroyer clarified that instead of two antenna locations above the cross, the internal mechanisms extend thirty to forty feet below the cross member.

Mr. Monaghan preferred to not be quoted as he is not the engineer. However, to his understanding the antennas are located inside the tower and are distributed on a much wider basis as a result of being confined in that relatively small area. The end result is only two carrier on the tower.

Member Shroyer asked if the possibility of a monopole was explored.

Mr. Monaghan preferred to put up a monopole. However, he was not certain whether or not the Brightmoor Christian Church would be acceptable to that option. Historically, he noted the matter was approached with the Zoning Ordinance in mind, which indicates that consideration would be given to those who try creative approaches to this problem. He indicated that the stealth tower was not the most optimal use of a tower for Cingular Wireless.

Member Shroyer asked if Cingular Wireless has any other cellular tower co-locations with Detroit Edison facilities throughout the state of Michigan.

Mr. Monaghan stated Detroit Edison has locations that throughout Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Ohio, Illinois, etc. However, Cingular Wireless is not able to enter into any type of agreement with Detroit Edison and is not categorically located on any Detroit Edison tower anywhere.

Member Shroyer asked if he objected to green or black vinyl coating for the galvanized chain-linked fence.

Mr. Monaghan indicated that whatever the City found acceptable would be provided.

Member Shroyer clarified that the current City Ordinance recommends, and does not restrict, future towers to be located in the OST District (Office Service Technology) or Public Land Use.

Mr. Evancoe stated the Final Report lists a number of preferred sites for cellular tower locations, including some City Parks and other public facilities. It tends to have a bias toward utilizing public facility locations for the wireless towers.

Member Shroyer stated it refers to water towers, Edison Electric Transmission Towers, existing buildings, etc.

Mr. Evancoe agreed.

Member Shroyer stated the map indicates that there are seven (7) towers in the City plus nine (9) additional co-location facilities. He asked Ms. McBeth if this information was correct.

Ms. McBeth believed the information was approximately correct as the map he was referring to was somewhat dated.

Member Shroyer noted the multitude of additional towers located on the surrounding boarders, such as Farmington Hills, Walled Lake, Northville, etc. Novi Zoning regulations indicates a preference for the co-location on existing buildings or structures. The applicant did not mention that all options had been exhausted, in particular the Erickson properties. The applicant demonstrated that it is not feasible to located the tower on quasi public land. Evidence was demonstrated of this attempt. He noted that it could be a concern as to whether or not the stealth design was aesthetically improper for that area, however he did not have a particular opinion on that matter. He asked if the Radio Frequency Engineer conducted the majority of the surveys submitted.

Mr. Monaghan answered, yes.

Mr. Schultz noted his understanding that the final study has worked its way into a proposed Ordinance Amendment that was before the Ordinance Review Committee, which might be coming back to the forefront. He advised the Commission to make a decision based on the Ordinance as it exists today.

Member Kocan questioned the Petitioner’s reference of the Ordinance, indicating that the antenna can not be higher than the building that it would be attached to. She did not agree that this was part of the Ordinance. She did agree that the Ordinance indicates that an antenna tower can not exceed 150-feet in height. However, 35-feet would not serve anything other than one’s car radio. She asked the City Attorney to address this.

Mr. Schultz stated the Ordinance references a tower that is a separate free standing structure, which is expressly permitted in the Ordinance (Section 2508) to be 150-feet in height. With regard to an antenna attached to a building, there is nothing in the Ordinance that varies the height limitation for that district or that building and related structures. He did not find a reference to that limitation in Mr. Arroyo’s report. However, he assumed this is the logic that the proponent is utilizing. He found this area of the Ordinance to be ambiguous and found the Petitioner’s reading of the Ordinance reasonable.

Member Kocan asked if it is still discretionary.

Mr. Schultz answered, yes.

Member Kocan noted the existing antennas located on top of the water towers. She did not recall an instance where the antennas did not extend higher than the actual building itself.

Mr. Schultz was unable to comment on whether the approvals were granted as variances or interpretations of an existing tower that met the requirement for an antenna tower as it is defined.

Member Markham stated the situation with Cingular Wireless not being able to reach an agreement with Detroit Edison regarding liability issues is not the City’s problem. A lot of cellular equipment already exists on Detroit Edison towers. Therefore, she questioned why Cingular Wireless could not obtain an agreement as the other companies have. The Ordinance depicts a preference for the Detroit Edison Corridor or Public Land. She agreed that the tower and its aesthetics are a sign. She indicated that she would be happier with the configuration if it were closer to or immediately adjacent to the church itself. However, the fact that it is by itself on the M-5 is not aesthetically pleasing. She did not feel the City would allow another cell tower to be placed at that location without some consideration. If it can not go on the building, then she suggested having it located next to the building and so that it is less obtrusive to the general look of the area. She found the alternate site acceptable. According to the Petitioner’s map it seemed to have approximately the same coverage area and is located in the OST (Office Service Technology) District. Although it is not specifically called-out in the Ordinance as a preferred location, she found it to be more desirable than the residential district.

Member Papp clarified that the green area(s) represented the existing coverage.

Mr. Monaghan stated that the green on the outskirts is coverage with existing cell sites.

Member Papp asked if the green area located at the bottom right hand corner is existing coverage.

Mr. Monaghan answered, yes. He indicated the proposed coverage areas.

Member Papp asked if it is ideal to have the entire map green representing Cingular Wireless coverage in the entire area.

Mr. Monaghan answered, yes.

Member Papp asked if it is his intention to return in the future with a proposal for a tower in the City Park area.

Mr. Monaghan stated this is a possibility. He noted the issue(s) of the dense marsh and wetlands thereby, not making it a high capacity area. However, he agreed that the City park would be ideal for a future tower.

Member Papp asked if the area east of the M-5 was considered.

Mr. Monaghan answered, yes. He stated it is the office park (Cabot Technology Center). However, he preferred the proposed site due to the coverage.

Member Papp questioned his statement of the provision of better coverage because his map represents a green area touching a green area.

Mr. Monaghan stated the green would not actually be touching the green. He explained that because the two cell sites would be conflicting, one would need to be toned down so that it is not interfering with the other.

Member Kocan suggested an additional co-location on the Fire Station at Thirteen Mile Road and Novi Road to provide service to the red area, which might not conflict with the green area.

Mr. Monaghan indicated that there is not an existing tower. He stated it is a proposal.

Member Kocan suggested tabling the discussion due to the fact that additional information is needed. These items include additional information with respect to the antenna height with regard to the height of the building and co-location or a combination of co-location sites on existing buildings. She made the determination that an antenna could be higher than the existing building or else it made no sense to place an antenna on an existing building. For these reasons, she suggested tabling the matter.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Shroyer, CARRIED (6-1): In the matter of Cingular Wireless; Stealth Cellular Antenna Facility SP02-21 to table to allow the Applicant time to submit additional coverage data with respect to the issues raised.

Mr. Monaghan felt it is evident what the Commission was directing him to do. However, he stated the additional information would not impact the proposed tower. He stated the tower would either be added or not. If there were to be two sites, or if the Commission would like to have it located on another roof, then it would need to be handled with another application. He asked the Commission to vote verses having him return with a new application.

Member Shroyer disagreed with the Petitioner. He felt strongly that the signage issue needed to be addressed.

Member Kocan indicated her willingness to withdraw her motion and instead motion to deny the Preliminary Site Plan and the Special Land Use, if the Petitioner preferred to have the Commission vote at this meeting.

Chairperson Nagy asked the City Attorney to comment on the matter.

Mr. Schultz advised the Commission that tabling would be helpful to address the sign question and the height issue. He explained that the provision of the Ordinance regarding wireless is silent on the question and that also there are two (2) other provisions in the Ordinance that seem to conflict with each other. One seems to state that the height limitations do not apply to cellular towers and the other seems to indicate that it does. He requested the opportunity to address this matter for the next meeting. The Federal Communications Act has been around for a couple of years and the Court has decided cases. He advised the one thing that is clear about those cases, if the Commission is to uphold a decision then it must appear to the Court that the Commission made clear detailed findings of fact based on good evidence and a good understanding of what was presented. He indicated that there appeared to be discussion on the record, which he felt reflected some questions. For the City Council recommendation and the Court, a record clear of questions for the reviewing court should indicate that the Commission understood all questions and answers in making their determination. Therefore, he felt tabling the matter would assist establishing this record.

Chairperson Nagy understood the Applicant’s perspective. However, she felt it was a legal question, per the Ordinance, as to whether or not the cross represents a sign. She noted another legal issue for the Commission to consider was this: If the facility is approved with the limited co-availability would it increase the potential for another structure in the same area for other carriers. She recalled Mr. Monaghan’s statement indicating that the green areas should not touch. She asked him if this was correct.

Mr. Monaghan agreed. He stated in a perfect world, it is ideal to have the green areas not touching. However, it occurs.

Chairperson Nagy asked if the office park would be a suitable location.

Mr. Monaghan answered, yes.

Chairperson Nagy stated that although Cingular Wireless did not have any relationship with Detroit Edison she assumed other carriers do.

Mr. Schultz agreed that there could be a contractual relationship.

Chairperson Nagy assumed Cingular Wireless carried workers compensation for Cingular Wireless employees if they are driving from site to site.

Mr. Schultz agreed.

Chairperson Nagy requested the City Attorney to clarify whether the issue at hand is the lack of coverage of a Cingular Wireless employee when on the Detroit Edison tower, or if the issue is whether or not the employee is covered by Detroit Edison.

Mr. Schultz believed the issue was a situation with Detroit Edison employees installing the tower or doing work on the tower and if they fall or are injured, they are covered by workers compensation. The injured person then turns to everyone except his employers or whom he can claim responsible for his injury. The obvious candidate would be Cingular Wireless. Cingular Wireless does not have a limitation on their liability in the form of workers compensation, because that Edison Employee is not a Cingular Wireless employee. Workers Compensation acts as a cap. Therefore, Cingular would not be capped.

Chairperson Nagy questioned the standard agreement that the others are using.

Mr. Schultz indicated that to his knowledge, other Detroit Edison tower relationships exist and Cingular Wireless is the first argument he has heard of. Mr. Schultz’ indicated that his initial reaction was that that it is insurable risk. Although it might cost Cingular Wireless money, he felt a short letter might be sufficient for the Commission. He did not find this option unreasonable.

Chairperson Nagy agreed. She recalled the Petitioner’s statement that the office park at the OST District would be suitable. The Commission could vote on a motion to table the matter or the Commission could make another motion.

Mr. Monaghan asked the Commission to define the direction of matters due to other alternatives. He was amenable to avenue the other options, however, he did not feel those efforts would salvage the proposal before the Commission this evening.

Chairperson Nagy hypothetically suggested that the options did not salvage the proposal and alternatively the Petitioner placed the tower in the OST (Office Service Technology) district. In this scenario, new Site Plans would need to be submitted. She clarified that this was the reason he was requesting something one way or another.

Mr. Monaghan answered, correct.

Chairperson Nagy called for the vote.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Papp, Shroyer, Sprague

No: Nagy

Mr. Monaghan asked if his matter would be heard at the next Planning Commission meeting.

Mr. Evancoe indicated it would be the next available meeting after which the various questions are answered.

Consideration of the request of Mark Young of Seiber, Keast & Associates for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan. The subject property is located in Section 4 on West Road in the Beck North Corporate Park. The developer proposes a 19,500 sq ft one-story building for offices and research/development uses. The 2.54 acre site is zoned I-1.

Ms. McBeth introduced the request of Mark Young of Sieber Keast and Associates for Preliminary Site Plan Approval for approval of a 19,500 square foot research office building located on the northeast corner of West Road and Hudson Drive within the Beck North Corporate Park. This corporate park is located in the northwest corner of the City of Novi, in Section 4 of the City. The subject property is currently vacant land and contains 2.54-acres of land. The property to the east is used for the Corporate Park’s storm water detention facility. To the northeast is an approved development plan for Design Research Engineering. To the west is a plan approved for a development called Youngsoft. To the northwest are undeveloped parcels within the Beck North Corporate Park. To the south, across West Road, is one single family home, and vacant land. The subject property is zoned I-1, Light Industrial. The properties to the north, east and west are also zoned I-1, Light Industrial. To the south, the property is zoned I-2, General Industrial and I-1, Light Industrial. The proposed site plan proposes a one-story speculative office/research building with a potential for five tenant spaces and a total of 19,500 square feet of building area. The site plan provides one driveway access onto Hudson Drive, and another access into the future development to the north. The building is proposed to consist of 66 percent office and 34 percent research uses. These uses are consistent with the Zoning Ordinance requirements for I-1 property when it does not abut residential zoning. During review of the proposed site plan the staff and consultants determined the following information should be brought to the Planning Commission’s attention. Planning review indicates that the parking as shown in the front yard, along the West Road frontage is permitted with the Planning Commission finding that the parking area and lighting that would occur in this lot will be compatible with the surrounding developments. The Woodlands review stated that a Woodlands Affidavit has been submitted indicating no impact will occur to any woodlands. The Landscaping, Engineering and Fire Review revealed minor comments, which can be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan Review. The Traffic Engineer’s review revealed that a Planning Commission waiver is needed to allow the location of the Driveway onto Hudson Drive. An off-set of 6 feet is provided, when the driveways should either be aligned exactly across the street from each other, or be separated by a minimum of 200 feet. The City Engineer has reviewed this, as well and provided a recommendation that the Planning Commission Waiver of the minimum opposite-side driveway spacing standard be granted. The recommendation is based on three items: A) The expected 160 vehicle trips per day to the site will be primarily from the West Road entrance to the Corporate park, B) The offset will not result in a left-turn interlock situation with the driveway across Hudson Road, and C) The realignment of the driveway to move it to the north would result in the loss of parking in the rear yard of this development, and may require at least one additional variance for parking within the front or exterior side yard. The Façade review revealed that the request is in compliance with the Façade Ordinance and that a Section 9 waiver is not required. The building is proposed to be constructed primarily of brick, with cast stone along the base and top of the building, and with metal screening around the roof top equipment. The requested action this evening is that the Commission either approve or deny the preliminary site plan. If approval is granted, the Planning Commission should make a finding regarding the parking in the front yard and grant the Planning Commission waiver of the minimum opposite-side driveway spacing standard.

Chairperson Nagy asked if the Applicant would like to address the Commission.

Mark Young of Seiber Keast & Associates introduced the Developer Matt Jona, Building Architects, Mark Farlo and Arric Green of Victor Green & Associates and Landscape Architect Joel Bodway. He did not have any further information to add to Ms. McBeth’s presentation.

Member Avdoulos indicated that he visited the site and found other buildings down the road that have front yard parking. He noted his concern of the numbers indicating the parking does not consume more than fifty percent of the area. He asked if this also includes the drive.

Ms. McBeth indicated that it includes the parking spaces only and does not include the driveway. Rough calculations seem to indicate that it appears to meet the requirement, however, additional information is needed for the Final Site Plan.

Member Avdoulos indicated that he did not have a problem with the way the parking is set. There are four (4) light poles located in each one of the islands. However, there is no information indicating what the light poles look like. There are trees on the islands that he assumed are behind the light poles. He questioned if the trees are large and could possibly alter the intent of the lighting. However, he assumed the light pole is one light fixture pointing toward the building to illuminate the building. The light fixtures are located in the canopy for entrance with light fixtures behind. He did not find a problem with this. However, the entrance drive off of Hudson raised concern. He believed the configuration is due to the beginning portion of the arc starting along the property line and cuts in. If the driveway was pushed back to align with the driveway of the entrance across the street, it might create a hardship for the applicant. The driveway across the street has not been set yet, therefore, he questioned if the Applicant would align this or would both properties work together.

Ms. McBeth stated the matter was discussed a year ago with the Youngsoft development. The Youngsoft development, located to the south, proposed to share a driveway and there is also additional property to the north. She believed the location of the Youngsoft driveway was pretty certain.

Member Avdoulos indicated an attempt to align the driveway within six (6) feet would result in a loss of a parking space. The arc of the drive could possibly encroach on the property to the north, which could cause problems.

Ms. McBeth agreed.

Member Avdoulos commended the landscaping plan. He described the Landscape Plan as aesthetically pleasing and an enhancement to the building. He restated his request to have the issue with the drive resolved.

Member Markham described the development as clean-cut and well done. Related to the question of the front yard parking and whether or not it meets the intent of the Ordinance, she indicated that most of the plantings along that area are deciduous. To minimize the effect of the parking and its view from West Road, she agreed the plantings would be sufficient. However, in the winter months, she noted it would not screen as well. She asked Ms. McGuire to comment on the buffering between the road and the parking lot.

Ms. McGuire stated it would be an excellent buffer. Euonymus Alatus Compacta is being used, which is a very twiggy shrub that would be difficult to see through in the winter months. Evergreens are located to the East Side and in the middle. She stated the buffer is very well done and would be sufficient.

Member Markham noted the picture of the development depicts company names on the front of the building. She asked if there is signage on the building as well as the ground sign located at the entrance.

Mr. Young indicated the building is modeled after the Halsted Technical Center building located on Halsted Road in Farmington Hills. The vision is mainly computer and technology and engineering tenants. Illuminated, channel-lettering signage is planned. He assured the Commission that it would be done tastefully.

Member Markham indicated that she was not anti-sign and supported signage that assisted people to find what they are looking for. She noted the Traffic Consultant’s comments regarding the off-set drive, the need to have the secondary access stub relocated, reconciliation of the easement as it relates to the property to the north and the recommendation of an eight-foot bike path instead of the five-foot sidewalk. She asked the Petitioner if it was his intention to meet these comments.

Mr. Young indicated that all the comments of the traffic review letter have already been met with the exception of the driveway. He stated all the comments have already been drawn up in anticipation of advising the Site Plan.

Member Kocan clarified that the dumpster has been relocated with the number of parking spaces maintained.

Mr. Young answered, yes. He indicated there are 72 parking spaces.

Member Kocan stated the required number of spaces is 71 parking spaces. She asked if the secondary access would remain where it was, going into Unit 5.

Mr. Young stated the Traffic Consultant, Bill Stimpson, recommended moving the secondary access to the west to provide the proper radii for the curbs as well as the proper turning radius for emergency vehicles entering both units to the north. He indicated that there is not a problem meeting these requirements, which have also been drawn up.

Member Kocan asked if a hardship would be created for Unit 5 by giving a secondary access north from Unit 2 to Unit 5 along with Unit 6 having a secondary access to the west into Unit 5.

Ms. McBeth noted a preliminary discussion that took place with a developer interested in developing on Unit 5. It appeared that they would be able to work with the situation where Units 5, 6 and the proposed unit would be able to share the common access drive.

Member Kocan noted the City Engineer’s recommendation to leave the driveway at its proposed location, as the 6-foot off-set should not create considerable traffic problems. Therefore, she did not have a problem with that.

Member Shroyer asked Mr. Young to show the Commission and Staff the changes that he indicated he made to the Site Plan.

Mr. Young showed the Commission the Revised Site Plan. He pointed out the dumpsters’ former location and their relocation to the northeast corner of the site. Additionally, the secondary access that was closer to the unit dividing line has been moved over with the proper radii. The green landscape planting areas have been straightened out as requested. Sidewalks extend from parking out to the public walk.

Member Shroyer asked if the eight-foot bike path was included.

Mr. Young answered, yes.

Member Shroyer asked if the other sidewalk was eliminated.

Mr. Young answered, yes.

Chairperson Nagy noted her liking of the Landscape Plan. She appreciated the Applicant’s cooperation with the changes requested. She also agreed with the City Engineer’s comments. She asked if the dumpster is brick.

Mr. Young answered, yes.

Chairperson Nagy clarified that the fire engine and radii issues were addressed.

Ms. McBeth stated the Fire Department reviewed the plan and would need to review the Revised Site Plan. However, she indicated that it has been resolved.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Ruyle, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Novi Tech Center SP02-20 to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Planning Commission finding that front yard parking is compatible with surrounding properties, Planning Commission Waiver of the required minimum opposite-side Driveway Spacing Standard as recommended by the City Engineer, secondary access moved slightly west, relocation of the dumpster as recommended by the Consultants and depicted by the Petitioner on a subsequent minorly revised Site Plan and subject to any additional comment and conditions on of the Staff and Consultants

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Consideration of the request of Art Greenman of Consumers Energy Company for approval Preliminary Site Plan and a Section Nine Façade Waiver. The subject property is located in Section 15 between Novi and Taft Roads on 44488 Grand River Avenue. The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing 155 square foot gas regulator building and replace it with a 390 square foot building.

Ms. McBeth introduced the request of the Art Greenman of Consumers Energy Company for approval Preliminary Site Plan and a Section Nine Façade Waiver for a 390 square foot gas regulator building to replace an existing155 square foot building currently located on the property. The site is located on the north side of Grand River between Novi and Taft Road in Section 15 of the City. The site is currently developed in the front area with the Consumers Energy Gas Regulator Building and associated equipment. The properties to the west and the north of the site are developed with the Polynorm Automotive buildings. To the east of the site are the McNish’s Sporting & Trophy business and an upholstery business. To the south across Grand River are Engineer Supply of Novi and the Rent-X buildings. The property is zoned I-2 (General Industrial) as are the properties to the east and to the north. To the west and to the south, the properties are zoned I-1 (Light Industrial District). The equipment on the property lowers the pressure of the natural gas from the transmission pressure to distribution pressure. The submitted plan shows the removal of the existing chain-linked fence along the front and the gate along Grand River Avenue. It also shows the installation of a decorative metal fence and gate. The fence will be moved back from its current location to allow for additional landscaping improvements in the front. The Commission should keep in mind that the development potential of the site is rather limited due to its narrow shape. Along Grand River, the site is only 50-feet wide. The Planning Review inputted the necessity to receive two (2) Zoning Board of Appeals waivers for the side yard setbacks. The I-2 District (General Industrial District) requires a 50-foot setback for the side yards. However, because the site is only 50-feet wide, this is not possible. 17.58-feet is provided on one side and 15.42-feet is provided on the other side. Utility structures are not identified in the Zoning Ordinance in terms of parking requirements. Therefore, the Planning Commission needs to make a determination to specify the number of parking spaces that should be provided on the site. The Site Plan provides one (1) parking space and a back up area to allow vehicles to turnaround without backing onto Grand River Avenue. No handicap parking spaces are required for this use per the Michigan Barrier Free Code. Additionally if the Commission grants Preliminary Site Plan Approval, the Planning Commission must also approve the modification of the required 20-foot landscaped parking setback. The distance between this parking space and the east property line is 5-feet. Typically 20-feet is required to separate the parking space from the property line. No Wetlands are located on the site. Woodlands Review indicated that the Woodlands located at the north portion of the site and beyond are not being effected by the proposed changes. A Woodland Affidavit needs to be submitted by the Applicant to indicate that there will be no impact to the Woodland. Landscape Review indicated a ZBA Variance is required because neither the wall nor a berm is shown along the Grand River Avenue right-of-way as required by Ordinance. Additional landscaping has been provided off-site on the neighboring property to the west of the site with the property owner’s permission. A Planning Commission Waiver is needed for the required 4-feet of landscaping around the building, which would need to be granted if the Site Plan is approved with the finding that significant additional plantings are provided elsewhere on the property. The Traffic Engineering Review indicated a ZBA Variance is required to allow for the unpaved gravel driveway and the parking area. The Applicant has indicated that the gravel surface is necessary for ease of access to the underground piping in case of an emergency with the natural gas supply to the site. The Traffic Engineer indicated two (2) Planning Commission Waivers are needed for the minimum same-side driveway spacing requirement per section 11-216(d)d). Typically 230-feet is required and 37-feet is provided to the east and 99-feet to the west. Three Planning Commission Waivers are needed for the minimum opposite-side driveway spacing requirements. Lannys Road is 18-feet of spacing and 200-feet is required. There is 127-feet provided for the driveway to the west of Lannys Road and 200-feet is required. There is 142-feet to the east of Lannys Road and 150-feet is required. The Engineering Review revealed that minor comments could be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan. The Façade Review revealed that a Section Nine Façade Waiver is required for the proposed regulator building. The Façade Consultant indicated that the percentage of siding on the north and the south façade and the percentage of roof shingles on the east and west facades exceed the maximum percentage allowed. The Consultant indicated that the use of the siding is consistent with the residential style of the design and would enhance overall design of the building. In actual measurement it represents a small area of siding. The use of the siding is consistent with the residential style of the design and is significant only due to the fact that the roof has a steep pitch. The Façade Consultant recommended that the use of these materials is consistent with the intent and the purpose of the Ordinance and a Section Nine Facade Waiver is recommended.

Bill Pike, Area Manager of Metro Detroit represented Consumer Energy. The facility was built in March of 1966 as part of the essential services to handle the residential, commercial and industrial of the City of Novi. There is a need to build a new facility to provide for the population growth in Novi and also for future growth. The old building will be taken down and a new building will be constructed. He recalled only a half of a page of requirements when the facility was built. He realized times and requirements have changed and he hoped the proposed met with the current standards. Inside the building is a series of valves, regulation, gages (such as Pressure, Volume, Temperature and Time) to allow the company to handle the load in the City of Novi. Due to growth, updates have also been made in Farmington Hills and Northville. He introduced Peter Pollak and Christi Dunnbar of Pollak Design who assisted in the project and Joe Marshall from the Engineering & Design office located in Jackson Michigan.

Member Ruyle clarified whether or not there is a violation of the A.D.A. (American Disability Act). He asked if it is waived by the State.

Ms. McBeth indicated that the City Engineer, Nancy McClain, reviewed this matter using the Michigan Barrier Free Code. Due to the use of the structure, it was determined that barrier free parking spaces are not required for this type of use.

Member Avdoulos believed the proposed plan would make the existing site look better. He noted his liking of the drive, plantings and decorative fence. Although it would not be visible, he was not enamored with the simple shed. He asked if the floor inside the building is gravel.

Mr. Pike answered, yes. He added that all the sites in the State of Michigan have a gravel floor.

Member Avdoulos asked if the valves posed any concern of combustion or explosions.

Mr. Pike indicated that all of the equipment, including the material, on site is explosion proof and non-flammable.

Member Avdoulos described the ends of the building as flush. He suggested an overhang of approximately six (6) inches on both gable ends for weatherproofing.

Mr. Pike agreed to make this provision.

Member Avdoulos noted the three lights on the building itself, however, he asked the location of the existing RTU Rack with the light fixture and asked if this would remain.

Mr. Pike answered, yes. He stated the light is located in the back of the facility.

Member Avdoulos indicated that the Site Plans show a light pole.

Mr. Pike indicated that the light pole has been eliminated. He asked if it was still showing on the Site Plan.

Christi Dunnbar of Pollak Design stated the light pole is located at the back of the property. It is a shoebox fixture facing inward. The light is to be turned on when the site is in use to light the utility area.

Member Avdoulos identified the light pole and apologized to the Applicant. He stated he did not have a problem with selecting one as a parking space because it would be used to monitor the building by whoever goes to the building. He did not find a need for four or five spaces. The turnaround space can also be used to accommodate a situation where two vehicles might be on the site. He asked if it is okay to have the planting bed on the adjacent property.

Mr. Pike answered, yes. The approval has been obtained. He stated it is not visible when traveling from the west.

Member Kocan clarified that the reason limestone drive is not continuous is because underground access is necessary.

Mr. Pike agreed.

Member Kocan felt the new fence would definitely be an enhancement over the existing fence. She asked if barbed wire would be placed on the top of the fence.

Mr. Pike answered, no. He indicated that if the Commission preferred, he would provide it.

Member Kocan answered, no.

Mr. Pike indicated that depending on the location, some of the sites have barbed wire and some sites do not.

Member Kocan did not feel there was need for barbed wire. Due to the narrowness of the lot, she asked if he anticipated going over the neighbor’s property for construction access.

Mr. Pike indicated that permission has been obtained from the neighboring property for this access.

Member Kocan stated the timing of the reconstruction of the Grand River improvements would impact when the sidewalk is put in. To her understanding, this would determine who would be responsible for installing the sidewalk. Therefore, she asked if the sidewalk expense would be the responsibility of the Petitioner.

Ms. McGuire stated the Applicant agreed to work with Oakland County Road Commission. The timing that the sidewalk would be put in place would be worked out between the Petitioner and Oakland County Road Commission. She indicated that the Applicant agreed to cover the cost.

Mr. Pike stated the sidewalk could be put in place now, however, it would be in the road way in a short period of time.

Member Kocan indicated that she was mainly concerned with the applicant’s intention to contribute to the cost.

Mr. Pike agreed.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Ruyle, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Novi/Wixom City Gate SP02-23 to grant approval of Section Nine Facade Waiver as the building is small and consistent with the residential design adding the additional overhang, grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval with the Planning Commission determination that one parking space be required as this is an unmanned station with only occasional visits, Planning Commission approval of the modification of the required 20-foot parking setback on the east side of the building as the lot is only 50-feet wide, two Planning Commission Waivers for minimum same-side driveway spacing requirements as the facility is already existing, three Planning Commission Waivers for minimum opposite-side driveway spacing requirements as the facility is already existing, Planning Commission Waiver for the requirement to provide 4-feet of landscaping adjacent to the building, with a finding that significant plantings are provided to the east on the property as well as off-site to the west, subject to two Zoning Board of Appeals Variances of side yard setbacks as the total site is 50-feet wide, Zoning Board Variance to allow unpaved driveway entry and parking area as the gravel is necessary for accessibility purposes, Zoning Board of Appeals Variance for lack of berm or wall along Grand River Avenue right-of-way for safety and access reasons, subject to the comments of the Commissioners and comments of the review letters being addressed on the Final Site Plan.

Member Shroyer asked if the decorative fence, across the front of the property, would extend along the sides.

Mr. Pike answered, no.

Member Shroyer asked if the ugly chain-linked fence would be left on the sides.

Mr. Pike indicated that a brand new chain-linked fence would be installed.

Member Shroyer asked if the barbed wire would be removed.

Mr. Pike stated there is currently no barbed wired existing on the fence.

Member Shroyer asked if the City is aware of this information.

Ms. McBeth answered, yes.

Member Shroyer commented on Member Ruyle’s comments regarding ADA. Although it is not required, he suggested widening the turnaround to make the site handicap accessible for the potential future use of the site and to provide for any possible future handicap employees. He realized that this could not be required of the Petitioner, however, he asked the Petitioner consider this option. Relative to the timing of the Grand River widening, he asked the Staff if any type of interim design is necessary or if the proposed design can be moved forward.

Mr. Evancoe asked Member Shroyer if he was referring to the apron and the curb cut itself.

Member Shroyer stated he was referring to the temporary usage of sidewalk facilities. The widening of Grand River will create a "mess" and he was not certain if the existing sidewalk would remain during the widening. Therefore, he asked if a gravel path should be temporary put in place.

Mr. Evancoe stated that given the scope of the Grand River Project, he did not feel a determination could be made at this time as to the appropriate temporary measures the Road Commission might wanted to do.

Ms. McBeth indicated that there is currently no sidewalk on the property. The sidewalk begins at the Polynorm located to the west and there is no sidewalk to the east for a distance.

Member Shroyer indicated that he walked to McNish’s located next door. He asked if he walked on pavement.

Ms. McBeth indicated that it is possible as there is a large gravel area and pavement area in the front.

Mr. Schultz advised that typically when a site is under construction with the knowledge of road improvements, escrows are taken when the Building Permits are issued for items, such as the sidewalk, curb and site improvements, if it is determined the Applicant would cover the cost. The engineers would indicate the construction, which would be escrowed and bonded to be done after the road is finished.

Member Shroyer clarified that the property would be developed just beyond the landscaping on the south side of the property.

Mr. Pike answered, yes. He indicated the driveway would be completed, however, the sidewalk would be completed in working with the Road Commission, Contractors and The City.

Member Shroyer indicated he supports the project.

Member Papp asked if the building has an alarm.

Mr. Pike answered, yes. He stated the alarm is connected directly to the Jackson Michigan Office and to his office in Livonia.

Member Papp asked if the police are contacted in the event of an emergency.

Mr. Pike answered, yes.

Member Sprague requested that the new chain-linked fence and the decorative fence blend together.

Chairperson Nagy noted that she did not particularly like variances, however, the proposed is an improvement to the site. She commended the landscaping. She agreed that the color of the decorative fencing and the chain-linked fence should be coordinated. Chairperson Nagy called for the vote.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

The Petitioner thanked the Planning Commission and commended the professionalism of all the Staff and Consultants.

Consideration of the request of Tony Dellicolli of Cityscape Architects, Inc. for approval of a Section Nine Façade Waiver. The subject property is located in Section 17 on the southeast corner of Grand River Avenue and Wixom Road. The applicant is proposing a façade change to the showroom area.

Ms. McBeth introduced the request of Varsity Ford for consideration of a request of Tony Dellicolli of Cityscape Architects for approval of a Section Nine Facade Waiver. The property is located on the southeast corner of Grand River Avenue and Wixom Road, in Section 17 of the City. The applicant proposes a façade change to the showroom area. No other changes to the site are proposed at this time. The site is zoned B-3, General Business, as are the properties to the east. To the south the property is zoned Light Industrial, but is approved for the Novi Promenade Shopping Center under a Consent Judgment Agreement. To the west, across Wixom Road, the properties are zoned B-2, Community Business. To the north, within the City of Wixom, the properties are zoned for commercial uses. The site is currently developed with the Varsity Lincoln Mercury Dealership. To the east the property is vacant land, with the parcel immediately to the east to be developed with the driveway to the Novi Promenade Shopping Center. To the south the property is under construction with the Novi Promenade Shopping Center. To the west, across Wixom Road, the property is vacant in Novi, and a commercial building is under construction in the City of Wixom. To the north, across Grand River, within the City of Wixom, the properties are developed with a Mobil gas station, a car wash and Hennessey’s Pub. The request of the petitioner is to modify the façade of the building from its present appearance, as shown in the small picture in the upper right corner of the submitted photograph. The applicant is proposing a new façade treatment for the north elevation and repainting of the showroom on the north, east and west elevations. The pale tan material proposed to frame the door will consist of ceramic porcelain tile. The grey area that looks very reflective around the front door represents the proposed black granite material. The Black areas on this elevation represent the metal panels, which are proposed for the north elevation. The circular columns represent areas which will be painted the darker grey shown on the façade color samples. The metal roof material will also be painted with a lighter shade of grey. The flat metal panels on the front and side elevations exceed ordinance requirements of 50 percent (61% on the front, 53 percent on the east façade and 58 percent on the west façade are provided as flat metal panels). The flat metal panels currently exist on the east and west sides of the building and the only change is that they will be painted. Additionally, the east and west sides of the building provide areas with single scored concrete block, where that material is not permitted in the Region 1 for facades. The concrete block however, is an existing condition, but still requires a Section 9 waiver. The façade consultant has stated that these metal panels and concrete block materials are consistent with the remainder of the building and visually tie both areas of the building together. Doug Necci’s opinion is that the use of the materials and the addition of the new entrance on the north elevation will enhance the overall design and appearance of the building. The Façade consultant’s recommendation is that the use of these materials is consistent with the overall design of the building and therefore meets the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, and a Section 9 Waiver is therefore recommended.

Lemberto Smuveiani of Cityscape Architects introduced Tony Dellicolli also with Cityscape Architects and Mike Stanford of Varsity Lincoln Mercury. The Novi location is one of ten locations across the country, which were selected to become a roll model dealership. The Novi site has an excellent image and ranks first or second in the country as the best selling dealer. This dealership has received a landscape award and numerous sales awards. The building footprint will not change. He indicated only façade changes are proposed to enhance the overall image of the dealership with the exception of an image paint change.

Member Shroyer stated the northwestern portion of the Varsity Lincoln property is located in the City of Wixom. Therefore, he asked if the proposed changes also need to be presented to the City of Wixom for approval.

Tony Dellicolli of Cityscape Architects did not believe it was necessary to go before the City of Wixom because there no changes are being made that are under their control. He indicated that there was no intention to submit the project to Wixom. He noted changes to the pole sign located at the extreme corner of the site might be the only instance it would be necessary to submit to the City of Wixom, however, there is no intention to change this pole sign.

Member Avdoulos commended their attempt to clean up the existing façade and stabilize the corner with a nice looking entry point into Novi. He stated the materials being used are easily maintained and would present a good image for the dealership and the City. He indicated he would be supporting the project.

Member Papp commended the Applicant on his proposal. He indicated his support of the project.

Member Markham asked what the black and gold portion represents.

Mr. Dellicolli explained that with the dry gasket system, when the metal panels come down and fold in, there is a deep gorged reveal that occurs. It is not a flush system with plastic caps and it is a nice scored system. The tan coloring is to give a better representation of the shadowing that occurs and how it will appear. He showed the Commission photographs of other sites depicting this area to give further clarity.

Member Ruyle noted his liking of the building. He agreed that it improved the gateway image to the City of Novi.

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Shroyer, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Varsity Ford SO02-22 to grant a Section Nine Facade Waiver subject to the comments of the review letters being addressed on the Final Site Plan with the finding that it improves the site and the appearance of the building for the City.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Chairperson Nagy requested to be removed from the Main Street Committee and the Environmental Committee.

Ms. Brock stated a list of the previous committee members was included in the commissioner’s packets. She believed all the positions would be re-appointed at tonight’s meeting. She added to the list Member Paul’s interest in both the Environmental Committee and Implementation Committee, Member Ruyle’s interest in the Rules Committee, Member Papp’s interest in both the Woodlands Review Board and Main Street Committee.

Member Ruyle stated the Rules Committee has a stipulation of a one-year requirement. However, some of the commissioners expressing interest do not meet this one-year requirement. He asked for the Commission’s consensus or City Attorney’s permission to waive the rule.

Mr. Schultz indicated that the By-Laws and Rules of Procedure is required to be amended and not waived. He stated the By-Laws and Rules of Procedure are not waivable. He advised that it should scheduled for the next meeting with the proper notice.

Member Ruyle indicated that this would be the only committee that could not be filled at tonight’s meeting.

Chairperson Nagy clarified the proper procedure is for the three (3) commissioners to amend the By-Laws and Rules of Procedure and present it to the Commission for vote.

Mr. Schultz answered, correct. Alternatively, the matter could be placed on the next available Planning Commission agenda.

Chairperson Nagy asked if the Commission found a need to discuss the matter.

Commission agreed.

Mr. Schultz stated the meeting would also address the adoption of any change proposed.

Chairperson Nagy announced the matter would be placed on the next available Planning Commission Agenda.

Member Sprague expressed his interest in the Planning Studies & Budget Committee, Main Street Committee and Capital Improvements Program Committee.

Member Papp expressed his interest in the Communication & Community Liaison Committee.

Ms. Brock announced the member of the Administrative Liaison Committee are Chairperson Nagy and Member Markham and Member Kocan. There are two vacancies on the Planning Studies & Budget Committee. Members Ruyle and Sprague have expressed interest in this committee.

Chairperson Nagy asked if any other commissioners are interested in serving on the committee. She indicated that she is not certain of Member Paul’s interest.

Ms. Brock indicated that Member Paul was a previous member of the committee and therefore, might have some interest.

Member Kocan removed her name from the Capital Improvements Committee and instead placed it under the Planning Studies & Budget Committee.

Chairperson Nagy felt Member Sprague would be a good addition to the Capital Improvements Committee.

Member Kocan suggested asking Member Paul to continued her service on the committee as she was an asset to the Committee.

Moved by Markham, seconded by Kocan, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To appoint Member Kocan to the Planning Studies & Budget Committee

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Moved by Markham, seconded by Kocan, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To appoint Member Sprague to the Planning Studies & Budget Committee

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Moved by Markham, seconded by Kocan, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To appoint Member Ruyle to the Planning Studies & Budget Committee

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Moved by Markham, seconded by Kocan, MOTION AMENDED: To determine if Member Paul is interested in continuing her position on the Planning Studies & Budget Committee.

Mr. Evancoe suggested amending the motion to indicate the approval of Member Paul’s continued position on the Planning Studies & Budget Committee if she agreed to continue her service on the Committee.

Member Kocan and Member Markham accepted the amendment to the motion.

Moved by Markham, seconded by Kocan, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: The approval of Member Paul’s continued position on the Planning Studies & Budget Committee if she chose to remain on the Committee.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Ms. Brock announced Members Paul and Markham have expressed interest of this committee. She indicated one additional position is available.

Chairperson Nagy asked if any other commissioners were interested in serving on this committee. She indicated that she would like to be removed from the Committee if another commissioner is interested in filling the position.

Member Kocan indicated that the Committee needs to have three (3) members.

Member Sprague expressed his interest to serve on the Environmental Committee.

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Kocan, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To appoint Member Markham to the Environmental Committee.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Kocan, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To appoint Member Paul to the Environmental Committee.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Kocan, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To appoint Member Sprague to the Environmental Committee.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Chairperson Nagy announced Member Shroyer is currently on the committee and Member Papp expressed interest in serving on this committee. With one other position available, she asked if any one else is interested.

Member Avdoulos expressed interest to serve on the committee.

Member Shroyer noted that on his form he indicated his preference to only serve on three committees. Therefore, he requested to be removed from the Communication & Community Liaison Committee if elected for the other three (3) committees, which he expressed interest.

Chairperson Nagy announced the committee meets twice a year. She suggested that the Commission make nominations and move the matter forward.

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Markham, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To appoint Member Avdoulos to the Communication & Community Liaison Committee.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Markham, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To appoint Member Papp to the Communication & Community Liaison Committee.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Markham, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To appoint Member Shroyer to the Communication & Community Liaison Committee.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Chairperson Nagy announced Members Kocan, Avdoulos, Paul and Nagy are interested in serving on the Implementation Committee.

Ms. Brock requested that a date be set and confirmed for the Implementation Committee as it is a very active committee.

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Member Kocan, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To appoint Chairperson Nagy to the Implementation Committee.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Member Kocan, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To appoint Member Kocan to the Implementation Committee.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Member Kocan, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To appoint Member Avdoulos to the Implementation Committee.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Member Kocan, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To appoint Member Paul to the Implementation Committee.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Chairperson Nagy announced Members Ruyle, Shroyer, Markham and Nagy expressed interest in serving on this committee. She asked if any other commissioners were interested.

Member Ruyle noted that over the past six (6) months when the committee has met, there were times when there were only two members present. Therefore, no approvals or denials could be made. Member Ruyle suggested creating an alternate position for the Implementation Committee.

Chairperson Nagy indicated the matter would be handled through an amendment to the By-Laws and Rules of Procedure.

Member Ruyle withdrew his comments.

Chairperson Nagy did not recall an instance where the Implementation Committee met with only two (2) members.

Ms. Brock indicated an occasion when the Implementation Committee met with two (2) members, however, no official motions or recommendations could be made to send items forward to the Planning Commission.

Member Markham suggested setting a regular meeting time to avoid these situations in the future.

Ms. Brock noted the numerous applicants waiting to be placed on the Implementation Committee Agenda. Therefore, she asked for the next possible meeting date.

Chairperson Nagy entertained for a motion.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Sprague, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To appoint Chairperson Nagy to the Master Planning & Zoning Committee.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Sprague, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To appoint Member Markham to the Master Planning & Zoning Committee.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Sprague, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To appoint Member Shroyer to the Master Planning & Zoning Committee.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Sprague, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To appoint Member Ruyle to the Master Planning & Zoning Committee.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Chairperson Nagy announced the suggested meeting dates are the second or fourth Wednesday. She noted her preference to have the meeting on the same day as the Planning Commission meetings due to a prior commitment she has on the second Wednesday of each month.

Ms. Brock indicated the Implementation Committee meets on the night of the Planning Commission meeting.

Chairperson Nagy suggested Monday or Tuesday evenings after 7pm.

Member Markham indicated her limited availability to arrive before 7pm on the night of a Planning Commission meeting. She did not feel a lot could be accomplished in the short period of time before a Planning Commission meeting. She agreed to meet on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday evening, providing that it is not prior to a Planning Commission meeting.

Chairperson Nagy agreed with Monday or Tuesday evenings.

Mr. Evancoe reminded the Commission that the City Council meets on Monday evenings.

Chairperson Nagy indicated the meetings could be held in other meeting rooms.

Member Shroyer preferred to not meet the same week as a regular Planning Commission meeting because of the amount of material to review in preparation of the meetings.

The Commission agreed with Member Shroyer’s comments.

Member Ruyle agreed with the suggested dates.

Chairperson Nagy asked if the committee members preferred Monday or Tuesday.

Member Markham suggested Monday.

Member Ruyle agreed to Monday.

Member Shroyer agreed to Monday.

Ms. Brock suggested July 29^th the Committee’s first meeting date.

Chairperson Nagy clarified that all members are amenable to Monday at 7pm, (the off week from the regular Planning Commission), with the first meeting scheduled for July 29^th at 7pm and the location to be announced.

Mr. Evancoe clarified that the meetings could be scheduled early or late in the month providing that it is not the same week as a Planning Commission meeting.

Member Ruyle agreed. However, he advised that meeting dates in the holiday months, such as September, vary from the regular schedule.

Mr. Evancoe indicated it would be the second or fourth Monday.

Chairperson Nagy suggested having the first meeting and making any necessary changes from that point forward.

Chairperson Nagy announced that the Rules Committee would be addressed after the Commission meets regarding a possible amendment of the By-Laws and Rules of Procedure.

Chairperson Nagy announced Members Papp and Kocan are interested in this committee. She indicated that Member Kocan is the member and Member Papp would be the alternate. She asked if any other commissioners were interested in serving on the Woodlands Review Board. Seeing no one she entertained a motion.

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Sprague, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To appoint Member Kocan to the Woodlands Review Board.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Sprague, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To appoint Member Papp as the alternate for the Woodlands Review Board.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Chairperson Nagy announced Members Avdoulos, Papp and Sprague are interested in serving on the Main Street Committee.

Ms. Brock indicated the suggested meeting dates would be forwarded to the City Council as the Main Street Committee has never met.

Chairperson Nagy asked if the Commission preferred to discuss amending the By-Laws and Rules of Procedure to allow three (3) member on the Committee.

Ms. Brock indicated the Main Street Committee is a joint committee with the City Council. Therefore, she was not certain that the Commission could make an amendment to allow three members.

Member Sprague withdrew his name.

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Shroyer, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To appoint Member Avdoulos to the Main Street Committee.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Shroyer, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To appoint Member Papp to the Main Street Committee.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Chairperson Nagy announced Members Avdoulos, Shroyer, Kocan and Sprague have expressed interest in serving on the Committee.

Member Kocan indicated that she had removed her name from the list.

Ms. Brock indicated that it was suggested that the CIP Committee meet quarterly on the second Wednesday of the month. The Committee typically becomes active in December, meeting two or three times until March when the Budget is approved. These meetings are coordinated with the City Council and the suggested meeting times can be forwarded to Council.

Member Kocan stated the meetings for the CIP Committee would be almost simultaneous with the Planning Studies & Budget Committee.

Ms. Brock answered, correct.

Chairperson Nagy stated the Planning Studies & Budget Committee includes Members Sprague and Kocan.

Member Kocan stated that she was not insinuating that a commissioner should serve on both committees.

Ms. Brock added that there could be an occasion with two committee meetings in the same week. As the Staff representative, she indicated that the meetings would not occur at the same time.

Chairperson Nagy agreed that the two committees go hand-in-hand.

Member Shroyer asked if there is a By-Laws and Rules of Procedure requiring the number of committees a member should serve on.

Ms. Brock indicated that it is one committee.

Member Shroyer stated all members have satisfied that requirement.

Moved by Ruyle, LACK OF SUPPORT: To appoint Member Avdoulos to the Capital Improvement Program Committee.

Moved by Papp, LACK OF SUPPORT: To appoint Members Sprague, Shroyer, Avdoulos to the Capital Improvements Program Committee.

Member Shroyer felt the Committee should consist of both an experienced and an inexperienced member. Therefore, he did not prefer to remove his name.

Member Kocan supported his comments. She felt long-term residence in the City was another important asset to the committee as one should be familiar with the City. The Committee handles a five to seven year plan and which roads need to be done and when.

Chairperson Nagy stated all three members are qualified to serve on the Committee. She noted to the Commission that Member Sprague has a financial background and the Committee involves monetary items. She reminded the Commission that familiarity with the City is important as well as financial matters. She asked the Commission for a motion.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Ruyle, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To appoint Member Shroyer to the Capital Improvements Committee Program.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Ruyle, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To appoint Member Sprague to the Capital Improvements Committee Program.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Member Kocan made one minor revision to the minutes.

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Shroyer, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Regular Planning Commission meeting minutes of June 19, 2002 as amended.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Consideration of the request of Mike Shammami of SAF Management, for approval of a one-year Preliminary Site Plan extension. The subject project is located in Section 13 on the south side of Twelve Mile Road between Haggerty and Meadowbrook Roads. The applicant proposes a 91 room hotel and guest suites on 2.32 acres. The property is zoned OST.

Member Shroyer noted his concern of the Petitioner’s request. He realized the Planning Commission approved the project last year. However, it was approved with a five to four vote and two (2) motions failing prior. The Petitioner has decided to change the hotel from a Holiday Inn Express to a Hampton Inn. The Commission was provided with a blue print of the approved Holiday Inn Express plan. Therefore, he did not feel comfortable granting an extension to a project where only two members of the current commission were on the voting body that passed the project a year ago. He did not feel adequate information is available to grant an extension of Site Plan Approval.

Member Markham agreed with Member Shroyer. She stated that similar does not mean identical. A Site Plan has a lot of very specific details and a building footprint or landscape change can be significant. She did not feel there was enough information to identify what was being approved.

Moved by Markham, seconded by Shroyer, FAILED (4-4): In the matter of Holiday Inn Express SP01-17 to deny the Petitioner’s request for a one-year Preliminary Site Plan Approval extension based on the fact that adequate information was not provided to allow a determination of whether or not the new proposed development would be identical to the development that was granted Preliminary Site Plan Approval a year ago.

Member Ruyle noted his familiarity of the proposal due to his wife’s employment as a property manager. He noted that it is not uncommon for hotel owners to change the name of the hotel. For example, the Redroof Inn located in Warren is doing poorly and the name will be changed. Although the name changes, it will utilize the existing building and existing rooms, etc. Therefore, he did not feel that a name change would have any bearing on the project.

Chairperson Nagy asked Mr. Evancoe to comment.

Mr. Evancoe offered two possible alternatives. He found the motion legitimate. Alternatively, the Commission could approve the extension subject to no changes being made to the Site Plan. If the Staff finds there are substantial changes that make the Site Plan vary from what was approved by the Commission a year ago, then the Site Plan would return to the Commission for review.

Mr. Schultz indicated the legal significance to the fact that the project already received Site Plan Approval. However, it does not mean that the Commission is not able to revisit the question. He advised that an Applicant, denied a second time around for a reason that would have existed the first time around, would be able to argue that he was not treated "even-handedly". There is a specific provision in the Ordinance that sets forth the Commission’s authority to grant an extension and the reasons for granting an extension. There is an assumption when an extension is granted, that the Site Plan to be extended is in compliance with all current plan criteria and that there are no pending changes in the Ordinance that would change those criteria. Essentially, when the Commission approves a Site Plan, the footprint, setbacks, etc…are approved. Therefore, assuming there are no changes with these criteria. However, the use is not approved when the Commission approves a Site Plan. Therefore, the change from user to another, (one hotel name to another) is not what the Commission is considering when determining the granting of an extension. He redirected the Commission to determine if the Site Plan still meets ordinance requirements, has anything changed, is anything likely to change, etc.

Member Shroyer agreed with Member Ruyle’s comments. He stated if an existing building changed names, then he would not have any difficulty. However, he noted the typical Holiday Inn Express and typical Hampton Inn are not anything alike in their appearance. He noted a Section Nine Facade Waiver and Woodland Permit were granted with the Preliminary Site Plan Approval. In addition, he believed there was a landscape variance.

Mr. Schultz pointed out that the extension is only for what was approved. Therefore, the approved façade, the approved landscape plan, the approved footprint, etc…could not change in any significant manner according to the Ordinance without returning to the Commission for review. Therefore, if the applicant can not develop a Hampton Inn with the approved Holiday Inn Express Site Plan, then they would have to return to the Commission.

Member Shroyer noted his concern because the Commission does not always review Final Site Plans unless requested. He asked if the Site Plan could be required to return to the Commission if there are subtle changes.

Mr. Evancoe assured the commissioners that the Site Plan would return to the Commission if changes are made.

Member Shroyer asked if the Commission would then have the authority to remove any waivers or variances that were previously granted.

Mr. Schultz stated if the Site Plan returns to the Commission, the Commission would then have the ability to review and compare the proposed change(s) to Ordinance standards.

Member Markham clarified that it would be legitimate for the Commission to deny the request for a one-year extension. She asked Mr. Schultz to define the conditions under Ordinance which the Commission should grant an extension.

Mr. Schultz stated the language is on page 3348 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Ordinance essentially acknowledges that it is the burden of the Applicant to show a good cause for the granting of an extension. The Commission is to consider the following factors. The Petitioner had demonstrated needed utility services has been delayed, he has demonstrated that technical reviews have raised unforeseen development problems, he has demonstrated unforeseen economic events or conditions causing delays, that the plan to be extended is in compliance with current ordinance requirements or is it a pending Zoning Ordinance change that would change those requirements. The Applicant has made the argument the reason he needs the extension and there are no changes that have occurred or are proposed.

Member Markham recalled the Applicant’s claim to have an economic situation as the reason for requiring the extension. The Applicant has indicated that it does not make sense to place a Holiday Inn Express at the proposed location, which she felt was an economic reason. She indicated that she would not be withdrawing her motion.

Member Papp asked if the extension is for the Holiday Inn Express.

Chairperson Nagy indicated that is what the agenda states.

Member Papp clarified that the extension is not for a Hampton Inn.

Mr. Schultz stated the extension is for a Site Plan of a hotel building that meets Ordinance requirements, which was called Holiday Inn Express at one time. However, he reminded the Commission that the Plan is for a particular use and not a particular named user.

Member Sprague asked if the plan did have changes and returned to the Commission, would the Commission have the authority to deny waivers and variances that were approved previously.

Mr. Schultz asked if he was referring to waiver or variances that were unrelated to the proposed change(s).

Member Sprague answered, yes.

Mr. Schultz answered theoretically, the Commission has this right as it would be a new motion. However, he advised that unless the Commission could point to a changed circumstance, then there would be exposure. The approval was granted once, and typically if there is a disapproval under a second review, the reason for disapproval must be rational and make sense.

Member Shroyer read from the Applicant’s letter, "The purpose for the extension, we no longer plan to build a Holiday Inn Express on the property." He noted that the plan that was brought forth to the Commission was to build a Holiday Inn Express. He continued to read, "Therefore, we have decided to develop a Hampton Inn Hotel instead. It will be similar in size and structure". Member Shroyer stated that the Petitioner’s letter it seems to indicate that it would not be the same and that changes would be made.

Chairperson Nagy agreed with Member Shroyer’s comments. She stated the word "similar" does not mean the same. The Petitioner did not state it would be the exact same site plan, same façade etc. Therefore she supported the motion. She understood the technicality of the franchisee change. However, the Petitioner’s letter seemed to justify a reason for the Commission to request a Site Plan.

Member Kocan did not support the motion. She stated the Site Plan was approved. Although she might prefer to change her vote from a year ago, she indicated that she could not. Therefore, Member Kocan stated she would be voting to approve a site plan that was approved a year ago. If changes are made to the Site Plan, then the plan would have to return to the Planning Commission.

Chairperson Nagy called for the vote.

Yes: Markham, Nagy, Papp, Shroyer

No: Avdoulos, Kocan, Ruyle, Sprague

Chairperson Nagy recalled the alternative suggestion that any changes made to the Site Plan would be brought to the Commission.

Mr. Evancoe explained that when a Final Site Plan is developed from a Preliminary Site Plan there are always some very minor changes. Therefore, he stated the Staff would make a determination as to whether or not it warrants another review by the Commission. He anticipated that there would be minor changes whether this situation would have taken place or not.

Chairperson Nagy believed the Commission could request to have the Final Site Plan return to the Commission for Final Site Plan Approval.

Mr. Evancoe agreed.

Chairperson Nagy asked the Commission for a motion.

Moved by Ruyle, LACK OF SUPPORT: In the matter of Holiday Inn Express SP01-17 to grant a one-year Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the building that was approved by the previous Planning Commission without regard to the name of the building.

Chairperson Nagy asked the Commission for another motion.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Ruyle, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Holiday Inn Express SP01-17 to grant a one-year Preliminary Site Plan Approval subject to any changes to the Site Plan from what was previously approved would come before the Planning Commission, in the very least the Final Site Plan will come before the Planning Commission.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Member Markham requested the reinsertion of introduction sheet, which identified the Master Plan for Land Use, it zoning and how it relates to the surrounding properties. She stated the overhead aerial used tonight is helpful for instances where she is not able to visit the site.

Mr. Evancoe recalled the materials were removed from the packet by the request of the Commission. However, he agreed to reinsert the materials if the Commission desired.

Member Kocan also found the overlay map of the industrial sites helpful.

Chairperson Nagy agreed that these materials were helpful.

Mr. Evancoe asked the Commission to clarify exactly what materials should be submitted in the packets.

Member Markham indicated it should include the addition of the aerial photograph similar to the one used in tonight’s meeting, the applicable sections from both the Zoning District Map and Master Plan for Land Use Map. She did not find the site photographs beneficial.

Member Markham noted the numerous Section Nine Facade Waiver. She asked who is responsible to review the Façade Ordinance for possible revisions.

Chairperson Nagy agreed. She stated the City Council has taken this matter over and it is currently in Ordinance Review. The City Council will complete the matter and send it back to the Commission.

Member Kocan indicated that the City Council is amenable to an early fall joint meeting with the Commission’s. She suggest placing the Façade Ordinance as one of the possible discussion items for that meeting.

Chairperson Nagy asked the Commission to review the letter, previously submitted by Member Paul, regarding free seminars. She asked for the letter to be provided to the new commissioners. The matter could be discussed at the next Planning Commission meeting.

Mr. Evancoe announced the latest edition of The Michigan Planner (page 3) features the City of Novi Community Planning Outreach Program. This program was joint effort between Bircher Arroyo & Associates and City Staff. In comparison to other City websites, the program is advanced.

Mr. Schultz indicated the magazine also includes a good article on Maximum Parking Space.

None

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Shroyer, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 10:50 p.m.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

________________________________

Donna Howe - Planning Assistant

Transcribed by: Christine Otsuji

July 24, 2002

Date Approved: August 7, 2002