The meeting was called to order at or about 7:30 p.m.

Present: Members John Avdoulos, Victor Cassis, Richard Gaul (left early), Andrew Gutman, Lynn Kocan, David Lipski, Mark Pehrson, Wayne Wrobel

Absent: Member Lowell Sprague (excused)

Also Present: Barbara McBeth, Director of Planning; Tim Schmitt, Planner; Darcy Schmitt, Planner; Lance Shipman, Landscape Architect; Ben Croy, Civil Engineer; Tom Schultz, City Attorney; Peter Albertson, Façade Consultant; Steve Dearing, Traffic Consultant; Doris Hill, Woodland Consultant; Dr. Don Tilton, Wetland Consultant

The attendees of the meeting recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Cassis:

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Chair Kocan told the Planning Commission that Barbara McBeth was promoted to Director of Planning.

Chair Kocan said there is an Implementation Committee scheduled for September 13, 2004.

Member Avdoulos told the Planning Commission that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee met the week prior and they discussed their anticipation of the City Council’s review of the Master Plan. They, too, plan on revisiting the Master Plan prior to the Public Hearing.

At the request of the Administrative Liaison Committee, presentations were provided by Staff and Consultants regarding site plan reviews. The following people made presentations: Barbara McBeth, Director of Planning; Peter Albertson, Façade Consultant; Lance Shipman, Landscape Architect; Dr. Don Tilton, Wetland Consultant; Ben Croy, Civil Engineer; Steve Dearing, Traffic Consultant; Darcy Schmitt, Planner; Doris Hill, Woodland Consultant; Tim Schmitt, Planner; Tom Schultz, City Attorney

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth: Ms. McBeth explained the site plan process. A pre-application meeting is held between the Applicant, Staff and Consultants after the concept meeting is held and a conceptual plan is submitted to the City. A Planner is assigned as the Project Manager to a project at this time. They review the plan from a planning perspective, and track and coordinate the reviews from the Consultants and other Staff. Typically the Applicant will then modify his plans and submit them for Preliminary Site Plan review. The Project Manager shepherds the efforts of the various reviewing agencies and once the review is compiled, the project is scheduled for a Planning Commission meeting.

Façade Consultant Peter Albertson, Nordstrom Samson & Associates Architects: NSA became the Façade Consultant in January 2002. Their review covers the Ordinance, special agreements, assessments, codicils, etc. Their pre-application review consists of providing the Applicant with a letter outlining NSA’s expectations for the Preliminary Site Plan submittal. At the Preliminary Site Plan review level, NSA provides a review which begins with stating the generalities of the project. Second, the review cites the applicability of all twelve Ordinance paragraphs that require a response. The final paragraph states whether NSA supports the façade submittal or whether the plan requires a Section 9 Façade Waiver. The process is repeated if there is an updated façade submitted at the Final Site Plan stage. The reviews also include a summary of the "Façade Region" which describes the percentages of allowable materials based on the location of a property. NSA alerts the Planning Department as soon as possible when a Section 9 Façade Waiver is imminent. NSA interfaces with the Staff when there is a Consent Judgment on a property. NSA more often than not has to request that the Applicant redesign the dumpster enclosures for Ordinance compliance. The difference between "vision glass" and "display glass" is typically addressed in the NSA review. Roofs with pitches greater than 6 and 12 are counted as part of the façade.

Mr. Albertson responded to Member Avdoulos’ question about whether he felt that the Façade Ordinance was effectively governing the façades without comprising aesthetics. He said that from a design professional perspective, it can be difficult to apply the standard to each elevation. The requirement that all elevations be submitted up front can be a laborious task. He did think the Ordinance provides a significant benefit to the community, as it provides the Planning Commission and City Council with documentation that affords a comfort level. There are instances where the Ordinance could provide some additional leeway as it relates to types of allowable material. The NSA review will state whether they support the Section 9 Waiver in these situations. Novi is not the only community with a Façade Ordinance; the Ordinance evens the playing field and its benefit will be obvious over time.

Member Avdoulos asked whether there are other areas in which the Façade Consultant can assist the City. Mr. Albertson responded that the Ordinance is adequate in controlling the allowable percentages of material for the benefit of the community. If the Ordinance were to go further, e.g., controlling colors or adjacent hues, the language could adversely affect creativity. Managing details like these could be better dealt with through other means, such as the PUD.

Mr. Albertson reiterated that the dumpster enclosure is almost always an issue. Concrete block is a sensitive issue, especially because in today’s market concrete block is designed in various sizes and textures, so it can be a very effective solution, but certain types are not allowed in Region 1. He suggested that perhaps there could be some adjustment to the Ordinance with regard to concrete block.

Member Cassis asked whether mandating the same materials and percentages brings dullness to a community. Mr. Albertson said that as a design professional, he likes the opportunity to design within the confines of an Ordinance so that he knows that when the design is submitted it will be reviewed without prejudice. There are so many opportunities in the façade design process to provide different materials, colors, textures, proportions, etc., that he has not yet experienced a "dullness." There is potential for a company to think that because a design worked once, it could be manipulated ever so slightly and be reused. This reflects the integrity of the design professional. It is common to repeat some elements from one building to the next for continuity purposes, but a professional should take the extra step to vary each design enough so that each building has its own unique characteristics.

Member Cassis noted that some of the recent submitted designs, the banks for example, have been somewhat different and he liked them. He asked Mr. Albertson whether the City should consider changing the Ordinance so that these new designs are compliant. Chair Kocan described a recent bank submittal wherein the proposed material was a concrete block that the Applicant said would mimic marble. Mr. Albertson said that architecturally, if the design is proportionate and aesthetically pleasing, chances are good that NSA will also support a non-complying façade. The Ordinance exists so that Applicants will design within certain parameters. From his perspective, the Façade Consultant must review the plan based on those parameters. He noted that banks have issues because they have canopies that throw off the percentage of materials. Banks also like a lot of "vision glass" that skews the material proportions as well. Although their submission may be design-appropriate and

aesthetically pleasing, the percentages don't match the Ordinance. In cases like these, Mr. Albertson would provide the Planning Commission with the interpretation of the Ordinance and he would also state his

support for a Section 9 Waiver. He said that was within his responsibility; however, making judgment calls on aesthetics on a broader base would be difficult for him and less than appropriate. He said that was within his responsibility; however, making judgment calls on aesthetics on a broader base would not be difficult for him but would be less than appropriate within the context of his review letter. If he were asked outright about aesthetics, he would certainly give his opinion.

Landscape Architect Lance Shipman: Mr. Shipman came to work for Novi in May 2003. He has been a registered landscape architect for six years. His role in the City is strictly Ordinance interpretation in terms of plan review, which takes out the possibility of subjective reviews. The Ordinance is divided into specific sections which dictate site layouts – parking lot, building placement, drive location, etc. The Landscape Ordinance controls a lot of the buildout of a site – berming, buffering, landscape strips, etc.

There are berming requirements when a non-residential use abuts residential. The more intense use has stiffer requirements – higher berm height and more horizontal land buffering. There are landscape buffering requirements pertaining to adjacencies to right of ways which vary by zoning districts from 25 to 34 feet. Allowable plant materials also vary by district. Parking lot landscaping causes the most issues because of the Applicants’ interpretation of the 300 square foot requirement. These requirements help ensure that a site does not have too much impervious surface. Building foundation plantings are required for non-residential buildings, at the square footage rate of perimeter x 8, with a minimum width of 4 feet adjacent to the building. Loading spaces and doors are exempt. Residential requirements are governed by the Subdivision Ordinance.

Material is also reviewed –how it is spaced, presented, cost estimates, etc.; most of these items are reviewed at the Final Site Plan stage. Mr. Shipman is very cautious not to encourage an Applicant to seek a variance or waiver. He is more likely to explain to the Applicant how the Ordinance can be met.

Mr. Shipman said that the City has a relatively new Landscape Ordinance and there are some minor flaws that will someday be ironed out. One flaw in the language pertains to the building foundation landscaping. This is the only section in the Ordinance that does not give the Planning Commission authority to grant waivers. This was probably an oversight when the Ordinance was drafted. Waivers are oftentimes required for buildings that have drive-throughs or other functions that prohibit the tenant from having landscaping adjacent to the building. Sending these items to the ZBA is an unnecessary burden on that board.

Chair Kocan asked about opacity. Mr. Shipman said that the Ordinance calls for 80-90% opacity but the subjectivity of that measurement has it own inherent issues. The opacity requirement is meant to be achieved in two years, which Mr. Shipman feels is unrealistic based on the fact that the sizes of plant material required by the City will first have to endure and outlive a "shock" period associated with replanting, and the plants will just begin to grow at the end of that two-year timeframe. He would recommend considering changing the Ordinance to a five-year time frame. Other communities’ Ordinances have height requirements, e.g. six feet, attainable within five years, instead of opacity percentages, which is a less subjective route. The new Ordinance does provide better sample renderings of how to achieve the appropriate opacity. The City is currently requiring double-stacked rows of evergreens, but he noted that because evergreens are pyramidal in shape, it is open to interpretation as to where the spacing measurement should be calculated.

Member Cassis asked about the warranty period. Mr. Shipman said that enforcing landscape management is a three-step process. The initial developer is required to install an approved landscape plan. Once it is accepted a two-year warranty period begins. After this two year period, the landscape maintenance responsibility falls upon the managing company or tenant of the building. The City responds to complaints, and Staff will occasionally take note of deficiencies on drive-by inspections. There is currently a volunteer task force that is assisting the City in identifying the deficient properties. When a property is identified, a Notice of Noncompliance is sent to the managing entity of that building. If, after thirty days the situation is not corrected or addressed, then Code Enforcement Violations are issued by the Neighborhood Services Division. Member Cassis commented that if the management of the plant material is not enforced the Landscape Ordinance loses its merit.

Member Pehrson stated that it helps him in his review of a project if the Planners and the Landscape Architect note the willingness of the Applicant in trying to meet the terms of the Ordinance in their reviews. In other words, if the Applicant worked diligently with the Planning Department to design the site as close to the Ordinance requirements as possible, Member Pehrson would be more inclined to consider their request for a variance or waiver than if they were just requesting them without regard to the Ordinance. Mr. Shipman said that he would be sure to comment on what discussions he and the Applicant have had, and he also said that the Applicant response letter usually indicates what level of cooperative effort has been made.

Chair Kocan asked about landscape diversity. Mr. Shipman replied that the Planning Department does look for variety of landscaping, which helps in the long run to minimize damage caused by things like the emerald ash borer. Landscape design is very subjective. Mr. Shipman avoids making design recommendations unless he sees a particular flaw with a submittal.

Wetland Consultant, Dr. Donald Tilton, Tilton & Associates: Dr. Tilton reviews the wetland plans and the 25-foot buffer of an upland area that is protected under the Zoning Ordinance. Dr. Tilton interfaces with the Planning Department for the wetland verification. They make a determination of the impacts of the site plan on the wetlands and the natural features setback buffer. He interfaces with the Engineering Department to ascertain the necessary grading information and the stormwater management, i.e., where the stormwater is being stored, whether the hydrology of the site is being altered in such a way that the wetland may be damaged in a significant way. To a lesser extent Dr. Tilton interacts with the Woodland Consultant if there are wetland mitigation issues. During the wetland verification and planning stage, Dr. Tilton also interacts with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. The City’s authority over the wetlands comes from the State, and a Wetland Permit cannot be issued that is more lenient than what the State requires. Tilton and Associates provides quite a bit of assistance to the MDEQ in Novi.

Dr. Tilton also works with the Building Department. Coordinated efforts begin at the pre-construction meeting and follows through construction and plot plans. Dr. Tilton ensures that all environmental protection measures are in place. The actual plot plan is reviewed for accuracy. Grading must comply with the natural features setback protection plans. Bonds are required at the pre-construction stage to ensure protection and replacement plans.

Dr. Tilton does some monitoring of the sites, but it is the Applicant’s responsibility to perform monitoring reports on annual basis, pursuant to the terms of the Wetland Permit. Through this process, Dr. Tilton can determine whether the wetland is surviving or if adjustments need to be made. His office determines through this process when the bonds can be released.

Dr. Tilton also works with Code Enforcement (Neighborhood Services) on a variety of requests. Sometimes it is for educational purposes, e.g., explaining why a buffer area cannot be planted with azaleas, etc. These interactions are usually "soft-enforcement" issues and occur because of a misunderstanding. The problems are easily corrected with proper restoration measures.

Dr. Tilton said that the City has a very good Wetland Ordinance. It allows for some nice administrative tasks that streamlines the permit process. The Natural Features language of the Zoning Ordinance should be reviewed to ensure that it complies with some of the newer case laws.

Member Avdoulos thanked Dr. Tilton for his thorough reporting. Dr. Tilton responded that the open communication between the Applicant, the City and his company has greatly improved everyone’s understanding of what is expected. For instance, if the Applicant states that he must disturb the buffer during construction, the restoration of that area is immediately described and agreed upon. He said that most issues can be readily resolved on site between the Applicant’s and the City’s Wetland Consultants.

Chair Kocan told Dr. Tilton that she appreciates receiving the detail of the various wetlands on site. He replied that he collects information on all wetlands – even the smaller ones - and he will gladly provide it to them; he has been withholding the information solely for the sake of not wanting to provide too much detail.

Dr. Tilton told the Planning Commission that they need to be mindful of the essentiality reviews; in order for the City to regulate a wetland that is smaller than two acres and further than 500 feet of a stream, it must deemed an essential wetland. In those cases, Dr. Tilton provides more detail so that the value of that wetland is more easily understood.

Member Lipski stated his admiration of Dr. Tilton’s work. He has previously reviewed another community’s sensitive review that was prepared by Dr. Tilton regarding a flooded wooded wetland; he said it was very fair and objective. He kindly requested that Dr. Tilton forward a paragraph to the City that details the recently cited case law of which he spoke.

Civil Engineer Ben Croy: Mr. Croy will have been with the City of Novi for two years in November. Engineering reviews focus on the design and construction standards – Chapter 11 of the Code, and the Stormwater Ordinance, which is the end of Chapter 12. There is some conflict between the stormwater language in these two chapters, and someday Chapter 11 will be updated. The Engineering Review at the Preliminary Site Plan stage only verifies the feasibility of the plan because of the potential for the site characteristics to change upon the other disciplines’ reviews. The availability of utilities, connections and general traffic layouts are reviewed at this stage. The stormwater plan is reviewed to a greater extent, as it is unlikely that much will change throughout the site plan process, and it is critical to determine that the appropriate base and volumes are present and the routing to regional basins can be achieved.

The Engineering Review overlaps the Traffic Review (ADA parking and accessibility issues), Wetland Review (stormwater) and the Fire Department Review (fire hydrants and connections). Typically recommendation for approval is granted unless there is a variety of issues or a major deficiency that needs to be addressed.

At the Final Site Plan stage, the plans provide more detail, such as invert elevations of the pipes, the slopes, capacity, flow rates, the piping, the grades of the parking lots, precise locations of the sidewalks and drive entries, etc. Additionally, soil erosion is addressed at this time so the Applicant can seek his permit. This review outlines the major milestones for the Applicant – the Final Site Plan approval stage, the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy stage and the Certificate of Occupancy stage, construction inspection fees, stormwater detention fees, maintenance bonds for utilities.

Member Avdoulos asked whether the west quadrant of the City has enough utility capacity. Mr. Croy replied that this location is the outermost extent of the Detroit water system, but the City has improvements in place to assist with the water pressure of the southwestern portion of Novi. One such improvement is the connection under I-96 right at the Expo Center, which will be available momentarily. Other improvements being considered are more storage tanks and West Park booster station upgrades. Member Avdoulos’ position on the Master Plan and Zoning Committee has enlightened him on the importance of master planning to ensure the viability of the City’s infrastructure.

Member Cassis noted that ten or twelve years ago there was a water moratorium on this City. He said that Member Avdoulos’ concern for capacity limitations is not a far-fetched possibility.

Traffic Consultant, Steve Dearing, Orchard, Hiltz & McCliment, Inc.: OHM is a general civil engineering firm that specializes in municipal and government service. Mr. Dearing has 28 years of experience, including previous employment with the Road Commission of Oakland County and the position of Traffic Safety Specialist for the National Safety Council. The Traffic Review evaluates traffic calming and safety issues.

OHM reviews the "global issues" (number of entrances, locations, circulation patterns) at the pre-application stage. Most of their integral comments are made at the Preliminary Site Plan stage, and they should tail off as the site plan progresses. At this time they review issues relating to access, interaction with adjacent properties, cross access, tying subdivisions into neighborhoods in an effort to avoid detached fiefdoms throughout the City, emergency access, garbage hauler access, school system tie-ins, etc. The correlation between motorized vehicles and pedestrian traffic and bicyclists is also examined.

There are some cases where a site plan may meet the language of the Ordinance (on issues and radius and curbs) but it is not a quality design in terms of how it provides for the people who might frequent the site. Long blocks of straight streets tend to bring on speeding problems. Tighter geometry will control speeds. Subdivisions with four-approach intersections are not encouraged because T-intersections are safer. Designs should promote a sense of community.

Signage and markings are reviewed and assessed. OHM will suggest sign materials, placements and alternative signing techniques that may provide better service. Mr. Dearing explained that when engineering standards are written with minimums, oftentimes those "minimums" become maximums. For instance, back in the 1940s and 1095s, college kids were tested in experiments that determined road signage should have a minimum of four inch lettering with some type of border. However, today acknowledgment is made that our society is getting older, and perhaps this four-inch minimum should be reconsidered. Bigger and brighter signs are more effective.

Member Wrobel described a recent site plan for a bank that met the City’s traffic requirements but was under scrutiny by the Road Commission of Oakland County. Mr. Dearing explained that a recent personnel change at the County level will likely bring on a more flexible attitude at the Road Commission. He said that his role in the City will be to enmesh the City’s goals and the Road Commission’s goals to design a plan for the fundamental purpose of serving the public.

Member Wrobel asked about the lighted intersection signs. Mr. Dearing responded that in Novi, those signs were installed by design of the City. The Road Commission is slowly accepting upgrades to the traffic process, but those internally-lit signs come at dear premium and the Commission will not be installing those voluntarily.

Member Cassis commented that peoples’ lives rely on traffic safety. He considered the role of the Traffic Consultant a pertinent one.

Chair Kocan told Mr. Dearing that a recurring issue in this City pertains to same side and opposite side driveway spacing, particularly within industrial parks.. She also noted that one of the evening’s Agenda items is to schedule a Public Hearing for a change to the Sign Ordinance regarding multi-tenant signage. She told Mr. Dearing she was glad to have him on board to assist with review of both of these items, as well as the traffic issue overall.

Planner Darcy Schmitt: Ms. Schmitt has worked very closely with the Master Plan and Zoning Committee on updating the Master Plan, a document which has far reaching implications for the City. It is the culmination of updated plans, community input and changes in development that provides insight into what direction the City will take in the future. The update should be adopted in October of this year. It provides a twenty-year forecast.

Woodland Consultant, Doris Hill, Vilican-Leman Associates: Vilican-Leman administers the Woodland Ordinance for the City. Their review begins with an on-site visit to review the designated woodlands and existing trees (potentially outside of a designated woodland area) with circumferences greater than 36 inches. They also locate the wetlands and study the topography. They consider what locations may have potential drainage issues for grading purposes. They observe adjacent landscaping and land uses.

The Woodland Review compares the site plan to the intent of the Woodland Ordinance. It also considers the Woodland Habitat Plan which is part of the Master Plan. Ms. Hill is also a certified arborist and has a strong background in horticulture and landscape architecture; she likes to consider the whole system in her review.

Ms. Hill does have suggestions for both the Zoning Ordinance and the Woodland Ordinance. One example is the City’s need to better define a multi-stemmed tree. This type of tree is frequently misunderstood by Applicants, although she said that calculating its size is easily quantifiable.

The Preliminary Site Plan is reviewed and comments are forwarded to Applicant. Items such as tree protection fencing being shown on both the utility plans and the grading plans are highlighted in their reviews. Vilican-Leman verifies that all regulated trees are shown on the plan. Surveying the eight-inch woodland tree is admirable, but this measurement excludes high quality understory trees of lesser size, e.g., hophornbeam and blue beech, trees that would be considered huge if they ever reached such a size. A six-inch minimum would catch more of these high quality trees and leaves intact a better representation of what that woodland is really like.

Vilican-Leman verifies that the Applicant is also taking the right steps, although this can be a subjective call. The Woodland map scale is so small that sometimes it does not adequately reflect the actual woodland boundary. An on-site visit is made to ensure that the submitted tree survey is accurate. The soil and understory conditions are also assessed. The understory is critical to the health of a woodland and as a habitat. Although the Ordinance covers mitigation of the understory, it does not clearly state that the Applicant should do so. New, quantifiable language can be added to the Ordinance.

At the Preliminary Site Plan stage, it is common for Vilican-Leman to make suggestions on the plan that will result in protecting more of the woodland and trees. At the Final Site Plan they ensure that all issues have been addressed either by the City or the Applicant. Aside from meeting with the Planning Commission and the Planning Department, Vilican-Leman oftentimes meets an Applicant on site for more thorough assistance.

The Woodland Consultant is also responsible for reviewing Conservation Easement documents. At the pre-construction meeting the Applicant is reminded of the tree-protection fencing standards and Vilican-Leman will visit each site to ensure its proper installation. They also inspect the replacement trees once they are planted on site.

Ms. Hill said that regular replacement trees are calipered at 2.5-3.5 inches. She suggested that a more creative approach be considered for woodland mitigation. Applicants could be given the option of mitigating with smaller-calipered yet high quality trees that are available at nurseries at this reduced size. The shagbar hickory, bitternut and butternut are samples of trees that must be purchased very small because they have such a strong tap root that they can’t be moved. In order to truly re-create what an Applicant might be destroying, it would benefit the City to consider suggestions like this.

Member Cassis thought that Ms. Hill’s comments were quite worthy and he looked forward to the City reviewing these concepts in the future for possible implementation. Member Avdoulos agreed, noting that sometimes the language found in the Ordinance is antiquated. The Planning Commission relies on the City’s consulting professionals to keep the City up to date.

Planner Tim Schmitt: Mr. Schmitt has been with the City for two years. He explained how the Plan Review Center functions. Once a site plan has been assigned, that Planner ensures that the reviews stay on track and the site plan gets scheduled on a Planning Commission Agenda. The Planner is kept up to date regarding any major problems that any one of the disciplines might discover during this review process. Some issues have the potential to stop a project dead in its tracks.

The Planner is responsible for relaying information to the Consultants regarding consent judgments, adjacency issues or Ordinance quirks that might affect the subject plan. The recent submittal of a bank was cited as an example of a plan that had of all these issues. Its location is Novi Promenade – a consent judgment development, its neighbor is Sam’s Club – a plan that has ZBA issues that could affect the bank, and as previously discussed, banks always have perimeter landscaping and loading issues.

The Planning Review consists of a letter and the associated charts for Special Land Use, lighting, and Ordinance requirements. The chart identifies what the plan requires and whether the submittal meets those requirements. Oftentimes the Planner’s letter cites any problems of which the Planning Commission should be aware. In the previously-cited bank sample, that Planning Review’s letter cited the loading zone ZBA issue, the consent judgment information and the clarification on the alternative stacking configuration.

The Planner also fields calls from the public as they are received, either regarding the status of the City, new projects or rezoning requests. The Planners keep the Director of Planning up to date on where each site plan is in the planning process so that the Planning Commission Agendas can be mapped out.

Member Avdoulos asked what the timeline for a project was, from the inbox to the Planning Commission. Mr. Schmitt responded that the process begins with a pre-application meeting, which requires a two-week window. At that point, the ball is in the Applicant’s court for time necessary to submit the Preliminary Site Plan. This requires a 25-day window (working days) for Consultant and Staff review. A "clean" set of plans will come forward to the Planning Commission more quickly. From pre-application to construction, the window is about nine months, faster with clean plans, and longer for complex plans. The Plan Review Center has greatly reduced the process time for the City of Novi.

Member Cassis appreciated the efforts put forth on each plan prior to its review at the Planning Commission level. He said the process has streamlined the time frame.

Member Wrobel asked what the Planning Commission can do to help the Planning Department. Mr. Schmitt responded that the greatest impact the Planning Commission has on the Planning Department is the size of Agenda they are willing to schedule. He said that hopefully, as the Planning Commission reaches a comfort level with the Plan Review Center, they will come to understand that with the multitude of experience of the various Consultants and Staff reviewers, any problems with a site plan have already been identified for the Planning Commission, and it is in the best interests of everyone that the plan be approved as described in the reviews. This will keep the process moving along. The Planners and Consultants will not let a defective site plan proceed.

Mr. Schmitt continued that there are many easy projects that fall into the process he just described. He said that there will be difficult projects too, and the Planning Commission’s input will be critical for the planning process to continue. He asked the Planning Commissioners to call the Planning Department immediately if, in their review, they find a problem with a plan. It is far easier for the Staff and Consultants to respond if they have their resources available to them. In contrast, having to field a challenging question while standing at the podium in the middle of a Planning Commission meeting can be difficult.

City Attorney Tom Schultz, Secrest, Wardle, Lynch, Hampton, Truex & Morley, PC: Mr. Schultz said that a representative from his office is always present at the Planning Commission meetings, and occasionally they are present at the Committee meetings. Their role in the City is two-fold. First, they are available as a resource for issues such as Ordinance-related questions or identifying the rights of the individual participants in the proceeding (the proponent, adjacent property owners, the City, or some other third party). It is his intent not to intrude on the Planning Commission’s deliberations; his role at the meeting is to feed the Commission additional information when he feels that the input is necessary.

Second, the City Attorney provides information on meeting process issues. In the case of Novi, the Planning Commission has always been collegial and well informed on parliamentary procedure. Mr. Schultz’s only sticking point regarding the process is his insistence for concise motion making. He asked the Planning Commission members to always keep in the back of their mind the difference between their discretionary and non-discretionary decision making. Their motions will always be open for review by somebody down the road. Discretionary items will be reviewed at the circuit court level if the site plan review is challenged.

The State statute that provides the right for a City to have an Ordinance stipulates that if a site plan meets the Ordinance requirements it has to be approved. As Mr. Schmitt commented, the Staff and Consultant reviews confirm a plan’s adherence to the technical requirements. While there may be times that the Commission does not like an Ordinance standard, they must approve the plan if the requirement is met.

Typically the motion is for approval. In some cases there are ZBA or other issues that will be listed in the motion as "subject to" items. If a plan doesn’t meet Ordinance requirements it can be denied. There are certain discretionary items upon which the Planning Commission can vote, such as landscape waivers.

Sometimes the Planning Commission review results in a recommendation to City Council, and then that body makes the final decision. To the extent possible, the Planning Commission’s recommending motion should be made to the same Ordinance standards. A reviewing court will determine whether or not the Planning Commission’s exercise of discretion was based on competent material and substantial evidence that was presented to them either by the Staff or by the Applicant. The first comparison will be against the standards of the Ordinance. As an example, a Special Land Use has seven standards. When a motion is made, it should list the standard appended with the basis for the decision. If one of the Special Land Use standards is that the proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses, the courts are very clear that just saying the use is compatible is not enough because that is just parroting the standard. It does not prove that the Planning Commission accurately looked at the record and made a knowing decision. The courts want the "because." Usually the Planning Review will provide some indication of what the "because" is. In summary, if the motion includes a discretionary stipulation, e.g., a Landscape Waiver or Special Land Use approval, the motion should be framed based on those standards. The standards must be repeated in the motion followed by the "because…" This demonstrates to the court that the Planning Commission knew the standard, listened to the evidence, and made a knowing decision. The court may disagree with the decision but the motion is self-explanatory. It will benefit the Planning Commission Members if they jot down the supportive information provided by the Staff, Consultants and Applicants during their presentations.

Mr. Schultz told the Planning Commission it helps to focus everyone when the motion comes relatively early in the Planning Commission discussion. This provides time for consideration of the motion and the addition of supportive findings.

Chair Kocan said that Mr. Schultz is welcome to jump in and inform the Planning Commission if a stated motion is lacking a crucial element. Chair Kocan asked whether all standards (seven for a Special Land Use) must be stated in the motion. Mr. Schultz said that some may not apply. Most will merit discussion. The more standards listed in the motion, the better the decision will be.

Chair Kocan asked how it is determined whether a Preliminary Site Plan with problems moving forward should return to the Planning Commission. Ms. McBeth said there is a section of the Ordinance that explains which conditions require a re-review of the plan by the Planning Commission. The Planning Department would also look at plans where a significant change is being proposed, e.g., a stormwater basin, and consider whether the Planning Commission should see the new plan. Input from the Staff and Consultants is used to make this determination.

There was no Consent Agenda.

There were no Public Hearings.

Chair Kocan called for a ten minute break. Member Gaul was excused from the rest of the meeting.

Consideration of the request of Amson Dembs for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan and Storm Water Management Plan. The subject property is located in section 4, in the Beck North Corporate Park on the west side of Hudson Drive south of Ryan Court. The subject property is 2.130 acres. The Applicant is proposing to construct a 23,896 square foot one-story building for office and warehouse use.

Planner Darcy Schmitt located the project on an aerial map. SunTech is located to the north of the property, JRJV is to the south, SC Novi One is to the east and Paramount Investments is to the west. The zoning in the area is I-1, light industrial, and is master planned for light industrial as well.

The building is speculative. There are two primary access points – one off Hudson Drive and the other off Ryan Court. The site offers two secondary access points – one connecting to the south (JRJV) and the other to the west (Paramount Investments).

The Planning Review indicates the plan meets Ordinance requirements. The Planning Commission will need to make a finding that the front yard parking and lighting is compatible with the surrounding development. They may wish to make a finding that the plan requires additional landscaping and screening of the loading area on the side yard. The screening could be located in two areas, according to the Ordinance.

There are no wetlands or woodlands.

The Landscape Review indicates that the plan does not meet Ordinance requirements due to the parking lot landscape deficiency. The Plan can be redesigned to meet requirements, or the Planning Commission may wish to waive the requirements. The Planning Department feels that the requirements can be met with the adjustments. There are minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

The Traffic Review indicates that the plan does not meet Ordinance requirements because the plan requires a same side driveway spacing waiver for the north drive and the adjacent drive to the west (105 feet required vs. 32 feet proposed) Staff supports this waiver if the road cannot be moved. There are minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

The Engineering Review indicates the same driveway spacing issue.

The Fire Department Review indicates the plan meets all Ordinance requirements.

The Façade Review indicates the site plan meets requirements, with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. Ms. Schmitt showed the Planning Commission the façade board.

Donny Couch from Amson Dembs Development, 26105 Lanny’s Road, Novi, represented the Applicant. Mr. Couch offered to answer any questions from the Planning Commission.

Member Pehrson asked Landscape Architect Lance Shipman to comment on the landscape deficiency. Mr. Shipman responded that the plan did not receive his approval because the parking lot landscaping is deficient. The islands are required to be 300 square feet. The Applicant has just provided a plan wherein they have adjusted the plan to meet the requirements without removing any spaces. Later in the meeting Mr. Shipman tentatively agreed that the plan submitted at the meeting met the requirements.

Member Pehrson asked about the driveway spacing waivers. Mr. Couch said the southeast entrance is opposite DeSoto Court, which has low traffic volumes. The Ryan Court entrance is across from SunTech, and a left turning vehicle would just enter a cul-de-sac. Therefore, since most exiting cars would turn right to exit the industrial park, there won’t be much left turning traffic to cause problems for M^cSquared.

Member Pehrson asked about the screening. Mr. Couch said that the Applicant would provide whatever the Planning Commission deems necessary. Member Pehrson suggested that this be part of the motion.

Member Pehrson asked whether the lighting was compatible with the surrounding properties. Ms. Schmitt responded affirmatively.

Member Pehrson asked about the side side south side sidewalks. Ms. Schmitt explained that the sidewalks would not be a requirement of the Ordinance, but whenever there is an opportunity to extend a sidewalk as far as possible in front of the parking spaces, the Planning Department discusses this option with the Applicant. There has been some adjustments made, but the Planning Department would like to extend the sidewalk to the far east of the parking area. Mr. Couch said the Applicant had no problem with that.

Member Pehrson reiterated that the only waiver necessary was the driveway spacing waiver. He appreciated the Applicant’s willingness to work with the City.

Member Cassis visited the site and did not find that the proposed alignment of the driveways was a critical issue. The roads are not highly traveled.

Member Cassis commented that it was somewhat unusual for an Applicant to present a new (landscape) plan during a presentation. Mr. Shipman responded that Amson Dembs has a longstanding reputation of working amicably with the City.

Member Avdoulos asked about the bubbled up sidewalks to the south and whether more sidewalks are being requested to the west. Ms. Schmitt said that the west sidewalk request was eliminated in the landscape requirement. Member Avdoulos confirmed that there is an entrance to the west with a barrier free ramp and one entrance to the south and one to the southeast corner.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Member Lipski asked about the inclusion of the landscaping waiver to the motion. Member Avdoulos said he did not want to include a waiver since the Applicant is working that out. Mr. Schultz suggested that the landscaping redesign is required and no waiver is given be included in the motion. Members Avdoulos and Wrobel agreed.

Chair Kocan’s interpretation of the Ordinance is that when placing a loading area in an interior side yard, the City may require aesthetic screening in according with Section 2509. Chair Kocan thought there was considerable landscaping next to the loading area. She wished to see landscaping between the building and property that the side entry is facing – to the south. In this instance, she would like at least some pine trees. Mr. Couch said he would work with Mr. Shipman to provide that.

Chair Kocan asked if the motion could include that the Applicant will comply with the landscaping numbers and will also add additional landscaping to screen the loading area. The maker and seconder of the motion agreed.

Member Cassis commented generally that this entire industrial park is developing nicely. There are some good quality tenants and nice buildings. Mr. Couch responded that Amson Dembs is beginning to groom the roads for the other tenants. Next year they hope to install sprinklers, even in front of the vacant lots, just to make the park look nicer. They are also working with DPW on installing sprinklers and flowers around the sign to enhance the park entrance.

Mr. Schultz explained that the reason behind breaking the motion up into segments is to alleviate a potential problem for the Applicant. In this case, if the Stormwater Management Plan is approvable, it should be listed separately in case an aspect of the site plan motion is appealed to its governing body for whatever reason in the future. Additionally, an appeal of the Stormwater Management Plan motion would go to City Council, whereas the appeals on the site plan would go the ZBA. This is a practical solution that gives a clear distinction of what the decisions are and what the reasons were behind them.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Consideration of the request of Amson Dembs for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan and Storm Water Management Plan. The subject property is located in section 9, in the Beck West Corporate Park on the west

side of Magellan Drive. The subject property is 1.86 acres. The Applicant is proposing to construct a 21,997 square foot one-story building for office and warehouse use.

Planner Darcy Schmitt located the property on an aerial map. Novi Spec is located to the north of the property (zoned I-1), City of Wixom is to the west, Amson Dembs Lot 37 is located to the south (I-2), and Magellan Center is located to the east (zoned I-2). The subject property is dual-zoned (I-1 and I-2) due to the reconfiguration of the properties. The deed was included for the Planning Commission’s review to confirm this information. The Master Plan reflects the same classifications as the Zoning Map for the area.

The site plan affords one primary access point from Magellan Drive. Secondary access points are located to the south connecting to Lot 37, and one to the north connecting to Novi Spec.

The Planning Review indicates that the site plan meets all Ordinance requirements, with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

There are no wetlands or woodlands.

The Landscape Review indicates the plan meets all landscape requirements, with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

The Traffic Review indicates that the plan does not meet requirements, as the plan as proposed requires a Same Side Driveway Spacing Waiver for the entrance drive and adjacent Lot 37 drive to the south (125 feet required, 63 feet proposed). The plan requires an Opposite Side Driveway Spacing Waiver for entrance drive and Lot 26 (200 feet required, 100 feet proposed). The Planning Department supports these waivers. There are other minor traffic items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

The Engineering Review noted the same driveway spacing issues, and minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

The Fire Department Review indicated minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

The Façade Review indicates minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. Ms. Schmitt had previously presented the façade board to the Planning Commission.

Donny Couch from Amson Dembs Development, 26105 Lanny’s Road, Novi, represented the Applicant. Mr. Couch offered to answer any questions from the Planning Commission.

Member Avdoulos commented that the Applicant response letter indicates their intention to comply with the comments found in the various reviews. He said this site is laid out nicely. There is a drive, then the building, bank of parking, bank of landscaping, another area of parking, and then another building.

Member Avdoulos asked if access into the building in that area was only through the loading area on the west. He suggested that a second entry be added to circumvent this situation. Mr. Couch said that wouldn’t be a problem if it had to be done.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Chair Kocan asked for clarification on the direction of the buildings. Director of Planning Barbara McBeth confirmed that Magellan Drive runs north-south. Chair Kocan asked Member Avdoulos if he would like to add to his motion that the Applicant explore adding another building entrance on the west side of the building. Member Avdoulos agreed. Chair Kocan asked Member Avdoulos about adding language to the motion for more evergreen trees for screening in the loading area. Member Avdoulos replied that there are two loading zones facing each other and there is a landscape island in between. He did not necessarily endorse that concept, because there will be a lot of loading activity and dumpster activity in the area. Landscape Architect Shipman stated that in this case there is an existing row of evergreens on the adjacent property. Member Avdoulos agreed to the language addition. Member Wrobel also accepted the new language.

Member Cassis asked to clarify that the driveway waivers have been granted based on the low level of traffic on this particular street. The potential for left turn locks are minimal.

Chair Kocan thanked Amson Dembs for providing an answer to every single issue brought forward in the reviews.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Planner Tim Schmitt told the Planning Commission that the City Council Ordinance Review Committee initially took up this request in 2003 after the Novi Town Center went in front of the ZBA to request multiple tenant names on both their Novi Road and Grand River Avenue signs. The ZBA turned down the request due to lack of hardship and the fact that Novi Town Center was trying to put the names of all eight anchors on the signs.

The Ordinance Review Committee took up the concept of placing tenant names on these shopping center identification signs. Their review went through several iterations. They looked at several Ordinances from around the country. The proposal in front of the Planning Commission is the result. City Council held a first reading of the original draft on April 5, 2004 on the advice of the City Attorney. The request was then forwarded back to the Planning Commission for a Public Hearing. The Planning Commission referred it to the Implementation Committee.

The Implementation Committee has been reviewing this proposed language and they have made some minor changes to it. It is important to note that this proposal is not going to have an immediate impact on the way signage is reviewed in the City. It is tailored for specific types of users and circumstances where there are large developments with multiple tenants.

The City has also received a request from Northern Equities that the Ordinance be updated to include a multi-tenant signage opportunity for office/industrial developments. The proposal before the Planning Commission will not likely help Northern Equities. Their request is more for the ability to place signs on buildings (as opposed to the ground signage).

Mr. Schmitt said this proposal does not overhaul the Sign Ordinance, which some Planning Commission members have questioned whether such an activity was an option. Through direction by City Council, Staff may ultimately take on that challenge. It may or may not come back to the Planning Commission for review. At this time, this is the only change being proposed.

The language at the back of the Planning Commission packet provides a "Master Sign" package for a multi-tenant shopping centers developments. The Implementation Committee has asked that the Planning Commission members familiarize themselves with the Sign Ordinance, even though it is separate from the Zoning Ordinance, and if they desire, request that a Public Hearing be scheduled on the matter to ascertain a recommendation to forward on to City Council.

Chair Kocan said that the Implementation Committee did discuss the verbiage of this proposed change. She asked that the Implementation Committee-proposed language for Section 28-6.A.3.a be reviewed once more before the Public Hearing. She recalled a discussion at one of the Committee meetings that by moving "and within the building setback area" forward in the sentence, the meaning of the sentence changed.

Chair Kocan told the Planning Commission that the Implementation Committee was not entirely comfortable with recommending a multi-tenant signage change to the Sign Ordinance instead of a complete overhaul, but the request from City Council was just for this Public Hearing to be held. The Implementation Committee still has open questions regarding proportionate signs, outdated standards, etc. It is very possible that City Council will put a hold on this Amendment so that the whole Ordinance can be considered for improvement.

Chair Kocan asked City Attorney Tom Schultz to comment on Jerry Fisher’s letter regarding a possible revision to the appeals process. Mr. Schultz responded that there are references to districts throughout the Sign Ordinance, even though it is not part of the Zoning Ordinance. In the event someone wants to characterize the Sign Ordinance as a Zoning Ordinance, holding a Public Hearing at the Planning Commission ensures that the process is appropriate. The Sign Ordinance as written sends appeals to the ZBA, again with implications that it is a Zoning Ordinance and not a Sign Ordinance. The City is considering updating the language so that the ZBA is not sitting just as a zoning body but also as an administrative review body. This issue is unrelated to this change which has to do with regulating signs and has more to do with identifying the function of the Sign Ordinance in general. Is it a police power’s Ordinance that doesn’t have nonconformity issues or grandfather issues or is it a Zoning Ordinance that might?

Moved by Member Cassis, seconded by Member Avdoulos:

Member Lipski commented that the speed and frequency with which tenants move in and out of shopping centers, offices and industrial locations are noteworthy concerns. The idea that the City must inform the landlord that their own tenant is gone and the sign needs to be removed is a problem. The reality is a multi-tenant sign could create an overload of inaccurate signage. Member Lipski stated that the process is more complicated than the mechanics of this Ordinance language suggests, and that obligating the landlord to remove tenant signage within a certain number days after acquiring possession, abandonment or cessation of business of a tenant space should be considered.

Member Lipski said that he was not sure that the definition of non-residential development including office parks is really what that includes. Non-residential development means everything that is not a house, apartment or mobile home. He asked if everything that is not a house will be allowed to take advantage of these additional rights. He raised these questions so that they could be discussed at the Public Hearing or even beforehand. Chair Kocan suggested that Mr. Schmitt research the background of these issues to get answers.

Mr. Schmitt stated that Neighborhood Services does notify the landlord that the sign must be removed. Member Lipski responded that it was not an unreasonable requirement for the landlords to take that responsibility upon themselves. He thought that it was a waste of City resources. Mr. Schmitt said that with an overhaul of the Sign Ordinance, Neighborhood Services would likely consider that type of approach in order to reduce their workload. He said it was a point well taken.

Chair Kocan suggested that the verbiage could be changed from "must be removed by the owner within 30 days after written notification" to "must be removed by the owner within 30 days [after termination of tenancy] or after written notification." This would make the language more powerful effective. Member Lipski said that cosmetically, it is better to have accurate signage. A big blank space on a multi-tenant signage might encourage some more aggressive leasing efforts by landlords and their the brokers to bring in more competent businesses. Mr. Schmitt suggested that "or after written notification" could be removed to tighten up the language.

Member Lipski suggested using the legal language that is something to the effect of "abandonment, surrender or termination of tenancy…" ; he said that the language should cover the gamut of how tenants part. City Attorney Tom Schultz agreed to review the language.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth requested that the Planning Commission wait to approve these minutes in conjunction with their approval of the minutes from their Closed Session, anticipated to be a September 27, 2004 Agenda item. Some corrections were turned in for incorporation into the minutes for future approval.

There were no Consent Agenda Removals.

There were Matters for Discussion.

Ms. McBeth told the Planning Commission that Planning Assistant Donna Jernigan gave birth to a daughter, Abigail Catherine Jernigan, on Saturday, August 28, 2004 at 10:37 p.m.. Abigail weighed 7 lbs., 10 oz., and was 20 ½ " long.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Moved by Member Cassis, seconded by Member Avdoulos:

The meeting adjourned at or about 10:50 p.m.

TUE 09/07/04 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

WED 09/08/04 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 09/13/04 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 09/13/04 IMPLEMENTATION MEETING 6:00 PM

WED 09/22/04 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 09/27/04 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 10/04/04 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:30 PM

TUE 10/05/04 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

WED 10/13/04 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

Transcribed by Jane Schimpf, September 16, 2004 Signature on File

Date Approved: September 22, 2004 Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date