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

Present: Members Victor Cassis, John Avdoulos, Andrew Gutman, Lynn Kocan, Michael Meyer, Wayne Wrobel

Absent: David Lipski (excused), Mark Pehrson (excused)

Also Present: Barbara McBeth, Director of Planning; Tim Schmitt, Planner; Jason Myers, Planner; Lance Shipman, Landscape Architect; Ben Croy, Civil Engineer; Larry DeBrincat, Woodland Consultant; Steve Dearing, Traffic Consultant; David Gillam, City Attorney

Member Kocan led the meeting in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Howard Friedlander, Applicant for the first site plan on the Consent Agenda. He explained to the Planning Commission that through discussions with the City Attorney, he has confirmed that it would be acceptable for the Planning Commission to grant him a one-year site plan extension on a contingency basis. He explained that his Final Site Plan is in for review, and if given its approval prior to November 5, 2005, the extension would not be necessary. Mr. Friedlander was hoping to protect this extension from being used if it wasn’t necessary to use it. He also asked whether the discussion on his project could immediately follow the Consent Agenda, rather than being placed at the end of the Agenda.

There was no Correspondence to share.

There were no Committee Reports.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth informed the Planning Commission that at the most recent City Council meeting, the following Planning Commission-related actions took place: Tuscany Reserve’s RUD Amendment was approved; the plan will return to the Planning Commission for Preliminary Site Plan review. City Council approved the Special Development Option and revised Concept Plan for Brooktown; the plan will return to City Council for Preliminary Site Plan review. Two separate approvals were granted for Liberty Park – 308 Multiple Family units and the Liberty Park Pool House.

Consideration on the request of Howard Friedlander of HEFCO Properties for a one year Preliminary Site Plan extension. The subject property is located in Section 14, at the southwest corner of Twelve Mile and Meadowbrook roads, in the OST, Office Service Technology District. The subject property is 4.68 acres and the Applicant is proposing a two-story office building.

Member Kocan asked to remove Item #1 from the Consent Agenda for discussion further down the Agenda, which is the standard placement of pulled Consent Agenda items. .

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Wrobel:

2. DESOTO INVESTMENTS, SITE PLAN NUMBER 03-23A

Consideration on the request of Adam Freund for a one year Final Site Plan extension. The subject property is located in Section 4, east of Hudson Drive in Beck North Corporate Park, in the I-1, Light Industrial District. The subject property is 2.39 acres and the Applicant is proposing two speculative light industrial office buildings.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Gutman:

Member Kocan informed the Planning Department that in the future she would like to see the reason actually stated in the request, why an Applicant is seeking an extension to his site plan approval.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Steve Schafer for possible recommendation to City Council for rezoning of property located in Section 17, south of Grand River Avenue and east of Wixom Road, from I-2, General Industrial, I-1, Light Industrial, and R-1, One-family Residential, to R-T, Two-family Residential. The subject property is 37.75 acres and the Applicant is proposing 162 dwelling units.

Planner Tim Schmitt located the property on an aerial map for the Planning Commission. It is a combination of three parcels – A single family home, a vacant parcel and the Profile Steel property. The area is zoned I-2 and I-1 for the Profile Steel properties, and R-1 for the home, and master planned for Single Family Residential, at 4.0 dwelling units per acre. Across Wixom Road to the west is Island Lake (zoned R-1 and developed under an RUD, and master planned for private park and Single Family Residential). To the north are The Promenade and Target (zoned I-1 and master planned for Community Commercial) and several vacant light industrial properties (master planned for Office). To the east are the International Transmission Company power lines and Providence Hospital (zoned OSC and master planned for Office). To the south are Wildlife Woods Park and school district property – Deerfield Elementary and Novi Middle School (zoned R-1 and R-A).

The subject property does have wetlands. There are woodlands, mainly around the edges of the property and on the Single Family homesite. The natural features will be addressed at the time of Preliminary Site Plan submittal. The Planning Commission reviewed the rezoning in March 2005, and recommended approval to City Council. City Council denied the rezoning on June 20, 2005, but was reconsidered at the July 11, 2005 meeting, at which time the Applicant was asked to resubmit using the PRO Ordinance.

Mr. Schmitt said that the Single Family Residence is considered an excepted parcel for the PRO. After discussions with the Applicant, it was determined that the Wizinsky/Boynton family planned to stay in this residence, and therefore it was recommended to remove their property from the PRO.

The Applicant is proposing 162 units for this duplex development. The Planning Department recommends approval of the rezoning, as it is consistent with the Master Plan. It would provide a positive transition between the commercial to the north and the less intense residential to the south.

The Traffic Review and Engineering Review both provide a summary of findings; neither found major concerns with the proposed rezoning.

As part of the PRO, the Applicant is expected to provide two important criteria: The proposal must provide an enhanced land development when compared to the underlying zoning. In this case, it needs to be an enhanced land development when compared to the R-T zoning, not the existing zoning. Also, the Applicant must show a substantial public benefit. This information can be found in Section 3402.d.2. Neither of these conditions have been met. The Ordinance deviations being requested are fairly far-reaching.

The Wetland and Woodland Reviews indicated specific items that would be addressed at the time of Preliminary Site Plan submittal. There will likely be several areas of wetland impact throughout the site. There are several pocket wetlands throughout the site, some of which may be drains, and may or may not be regulated. There are several large wetland complexes on the site – well over two acres.

The Woodland Review could recommend approval, subject to four specific conditions. The woodlands that are proposed to be saved would require substantial retaining walls throughout the site. Without a grading plan, Mr. Schmitt could not substantiate that the natural features are being preserved. The remaining woodlands should be placed in a permanent Preservation Easement. Historical or Landmark Designation should be applied for, for the old growth trees on the site. The woodland replacement trees should be placed in the Conservation areas, or the common areas, as opposed to being placed on the lots.

The Landscape Review does not recommend approval, since there is not enough information to validate Commitment #2, referring to the setback of landscaping along Wixom Road.

The Traffic Review indicated that approval is not recommended at this time, as the development is likely a driveway spacing issue with respect to the driveway to the north, on the west side of Wixom Road.

There were no elevations submitted at this time. The Applicant will have to comply with the façade requirements for Two-Family buildings.

The Fire Department Review indicated that there are issues to comply with at the time of Preliminary Site Plan submittal.

Mr. Schmitt said that the Applicant is proposing the following benefits: All required improvements would be constructed along Wixom Road. The landscape requirements will be exceeded, and the setbacks would be increased along Wixom Road. A walking path would be constructed along the City Park and connecting to Providence Hospital. The density would be limited to 172 dwelling units. The historic home would be preserved. The removal of an attractive nuisance industrial building would improve the health, safety and welfare status of the property.

Mr. Schmitt said that the deviations being requested are: The Applicant is seeking a blanket variance for the rear yard setbacks between units – typically 35 feet would be required, which would result in 70 feet between back-to-back units. According to Section 2514, conceptual lot lines for duplex developments must be demonstrated. In this case, most setbacks are not being met. Each variance would be for nine feet per unit, or 18 feet between the back-to-back measurement. The Applicant is also asking for a variance for the amount of units permitted on the site. 35.74 acres are proposed under the PRO Overlay, with 2.7 acres of wetlands. This acreage yields no more than 172 units. There are 162 units proposed, which is 4.53 dwelling units per acre (.07 less than what would be permitted). With the wetland acreage factored in, the density is over what would be allowed.

Mr. Schmitt said that without the grading information, the Planning Department cannot verify that the woodlands will indeed be saved on this site. The Planning Department also recommends additional sidewalk improvements be considered. The Planning Department is concerned that the architecture of the buildings will not meet the façade requirements, though the City has yet to have a duplex meet the requirements, due to the amount of roof proposed. Mr. Schmitt has suggested that the Applicant provide the elevations now for review. If they do not meet the standards, it could result in the need for an amendment to the PRO Agreement.

Steve Schafer, Schafer Development, 25800 Northwestern Hwy, Southfield, addressed the Planning Commission. He said that has been working with the Planning Department quite extensively. He was not fully in agreement with their review. He said that the density they have proposed is appropriate. He said he removed the Wizinsky property from the calculation at the request of the Planning Department. If there were two additional acres, it wouldn’t be an issue. He didn’t have a problem with including the Wizinsky property, nor did the Wizinskys. It is in the interest of the City to see the Wizinsky homestead preserved in some fashion. If the land area does become an issue, he said he would likely include the Wizinsky property back into the PRO.

Mr. Schafer said that the Ordinance calls for a measurement to be 25 feet from the property line. It is specific in its terminology usage of property lines. Within that area, Mr. Schafer said he has maintained the exterior property setbacks, but he felt that the Ordinance was somewhat vague in discussing the interior setback measurements. He said that the RM-1 setbacks are being met. He would like to have relief through the PRO for the interior setbacks. The parallel plan provides perceived lot lines, which indicates that the perceived lot size is far greater than the required 7,500 square feet required.

Mr. Schafer said that the he hopes to provide an upscale community with nicely sized units. He anticipated the homes to sell between the upper $400,000-$500,000s. The units could be reduced in size and increased in density to provide something less expensive is not reflective of the pace of condominium sales in Island Lake, the neighboring development. He said that only three units were unsold in Island Lake. He said the product he proposes to build has been successful in Novi. There are a lot of empty nesters that don’t want the large yards. This housing would be a benefit to the community.

Mr. Schafer said he misunderstood Mr. Schmitt’s comments regarding the "substantial benefit" requirement. Mr. Schafer said that if the project is compared to an R-T development, this project does exceed the landscaping requirements. If the project is compared to the land use, this property currently houses a business that does not compare to the huge economics this project would bring. The current use is somewhat of an attractive nuisance. Mr. Schafer provided pictures of the Profile Steel exterior. There is a stockpile of steel. He noted that there is a school next to this property. Kids can get over to this property. The elimination of this use, especially with Catholic Central and the two Novi Schools, would cease the open steel hauler traffic. He cited an accident from some years ago where students collided with a steel hauler and the result was horrific.

Mr. Schafer said that Profile has been in business for many years, predating the development that is now in the area. The vicinity is changing – Island Lake offers million-dollar homes; a park; an elementary school; a middle school; Catholic Central; Providence Hospital. Mr. Schafer was not sure he could consider Profile Steel an appropriate use for the area. He explained that as part of this development, he must assist Profile Steel in moving to a new location, which includes moving their equipment. Profile Steel has a long term lease on the property.

Mr. Schafer said that another compelling benefit is the economic factor. The City’s share of Profile Steel’s taxes is about $17,000 per year. His development proposes the City’s share of taxes will be $315,000 (of the anticipated $648,000 collected). He reiterated that his proposal would clean up the area.

Mr. Schafer said that they hired Tetra Tech as their traffic engineer. There was discussion on providing another access point, but they felt there were sight distance issues. The proposed access does line up directly with the Island Lake Boulevard across the street. It will be a similar configuration – with a boulevard down the middle of the road. He felt this was the ideal location for their access. Also, he was working with the Wizinskys to reconfigure a part of their driveway. He thought that if there is indeed an issue with the spacing between the Wizinskys and this development, there is an opportunity to address that. Having a secondary access to the south is not a benefit – the park and the elementary school are in very close proximity. He felt that the proposed access functions well for this type of community.

Mr. Schafer said that they have spoken with Providence Hospital, and they have met with their engineers. Mr. Schafer said that they have relocated their access point and Providence has now agreed to allow an access point from this development to the Providence drive. Mr. Schafer has also acquired an easement from the power company to cross and extend utilities through that corridor.

Mr. Schafer said that there is quite a bit of natural features that will have to be removed. There is an abundance of crushed concrete (four feet deep) and re-rod that must be removed. The area will have to be cleaned up. Before Profile Steel was on this site, there was an operation that manufactured grade beams and the by-product, and the crushed concrete, was dumped on the site. There are wetlands in the area. There are phragmites growing through the cement. ECT walked the site early on. They have also met with the MDEQ. They were familiar with the area because of the work being done on the Providence site. The MDEQ Staff person was pleased with what is being proposed on this site. Mr. Schafer said they would be cleaning the debris out of the detention basin. There is a stock pond that has been used for irrigation. There are horses in the area. This area will be enhanced.

Mr. Schafer said that there are few other natural features on the site. They have met with Vilican Leman and he felt that their position was that the plan tried to avoid as much woodland area as possible. Mr. Schafer said he wanted to build an emergent woodland. Mr. Schafer said they will impact the woodlands when they line their drive up to Island Lake. They have pulled back a bit off the road to put in a nice area of landscape. Mr. Schafer said he would certainly be responding to the Landscape Review.

Mr. Schafer said that he was not required to provide the elevations but he did not feel there would be a problem with the similar/dissimilar Ordinance. He said the homes would have substantial amounts of the brick. He showed the Planning Commission some concepts for the duplex.

Mr. Schafer said he was proposing the roads to be private. From the curbline, the setback is about 25 feet. Mr. Schmitt had made a comment in his review that the sidewalks might get blocked if there are two cars in the garage and four in the driveway. Mr. Schafer offered to make the sidewalk integral off the curb.

Chair Cassis opened the floor for public comment:

Nick Mataxis, CMC property owner (directly to the north): Concerned that his property will be drastically affected by having a residential site abutting his industrially-zoned property. He said that residential would further restrict what types of uses could be housed on his site. For example, he would not be able to have a storage facility. He has spoken with Mr. Schafer regarding the impact of industrial land on his property, and Mr. Schafer has commented that it would be acceptable. Mr. Mataxis felt that the onus for setbacks should be on this project, otherwise so much of his property would be required for setbacks.

- tape malfunction for a few minutes -

Member Avdoulos said that this would be an asset to the City. For the purchase price, people will want to have a little bit of room. Member Avdoulos said that he did not find any specific number of units to be "magic," 172/173 by City Council, or 162 proposed by the Applicant. He felt the end result number will be based on giving the development enough room, reviewing the setbacks and guidelines of the R-T zoning. Member Avdoulos was a proponent of interconnection, referring to the connection to Providence and the securing of those easements. His concern was for a secure access and the compatibility of the two projects. He noted the addition of bike paths throughout the City, which allows citizens to enjoy more than just their own subdivision.

Member Avdoulos said he would recommend to City Council that, at minimum, the R-T zoning setbacks should be met. They should be enhanced to provide more interest. People are concerned with traffic, and Wixom Road is a main artery. He said the higher density for this site (as opposed to the density further south down Wixom Road) would be acceptable because of its proximity to commercial and Grand River.

Member Wrobel was concerned that the Applicant was proposing too much on too little land. He liked the concept, but nothing is distinctive. He said it was a cookie-cutter development. He did not support making the rear yard setbacks smaller; people would be too close together.

Member Wrobel agreed with the concept of connecting with Providence, but he was afraid that people would just cut through the street to get to Wixom Road.

Member Meyer said that the developer has demonstrated an enhanced land development. There will be a substantial public benefit to Novi. He thought it would be a nice addition to the City and would be creatively done.

Member Meyer was concerned about CMC losing what appears to be two acres of land. He said the onus should be on Mr. Schafer – to build the berm and separate the two properties.

Member Gutman felt that the development was the right choice for the area.

Member Kocan objected to the request for a reduced back yard setback. Every home would have to go to the ZBA for a variance to build a deck. She would not do that to those homeowners. She noted that some wetlands were being filled to add density to the site. She said the project was designed toward a specific number of units, as opposed to being designed to the property. The entry does have an aesthetic quality, but it is lost as soon as one passes the wetlands.

Member Kocan agreed with the comment about the stub street to the north is not at the best location. She said that the City doesn’t want to create stub streets that create a hardship on the properties that aren’t developed yet. The proposed stub appears to lead into a wetland on the property to the north. If the street were moved to the west it would be better. She said that would create an opportunity to create more appeal to the street layout. She understood that the stub to Providence would not be an open road. It will be an emergency gated access only. There will be a gate on both sides of the ITC corridor. Mr. Schmitt said this will be further reviewed at Preliminary Site Plan submittal, though he anticipated the use of two gates. Member Kocan would not support an open drive between the two properties.

Member Kocan looked at the berm issue relating to the industrial land very closely. She said the berm required would be ten feet high, which would take a minimum of 65 feet. She understood that the industrial development would be required to put in this berm. Landscape Architect Lance Shipman responded that the Ordinance is written such that the onus would be on the industrial development choosing to develop adjacent to residential. If the industrial property was already developed, then the residential would have to place the berm. Member Kocan said that in light of the building setback requirements and parking setback requirements, she could not support the rezoning request. She saw the burden that was being placed on the Grand River properties.

Member Kocan also had a problem with the density. There would be a lot of traffic added to an already busy road.

Member Kocan did agree that the Master Plan called for this zoning. She understood that City Council was looking for an R-T development with a PRO. However, there have to be certain conditions with the PRO. She recommended that the Applicant provide all sidewalk connections along Wixom Road. She would look for an architectural commitment that the façades would meet the Ordinance. She thought that the amount of shingles was the problem, and asked Mr. Schmitt to comment further. He responded that the two other duplex projects both required waivers, and he thought this project could run into the same problem. She would support a variance for the amount of shingles, if the look of the building was residential in nature.

Member Kocan thought that it created problems when an Applicant comes forward with a "magic number" that they wished to achieve for their density. The density allowed is a guide; it is not a commitment. City Council needs to look at the development to ensure that it is compatible with the topography. This is more important than squeezing in an additional unit.

Member Kocan understood the Applicant planned to align his entrance with the existing entrance on the other side of the road.

Member Kocan asked Mr. Schmitt about the oil derrick. Mr. Schmitt responded that there three active oil pumps on the neighboring Wildlife Woods Park. The general location of the rigs is shown on the survey provided to the Planning Commission. Member Kocan asked who owned the pumps. Mr. Schafer responded that there is an easement that provides access to the rigs. The easement extends into the property. Mr. Schafer said he wanted to keep that area separate. The owners come in about twice per month and service the wells and remove product. Mr. Schafer thought they could tie into the walkway. The wells will be gone in about seven to nine years. With the current price of oil, these rigs will stay active a bit longer than originally anticipated. They have are injected something into the wells to maintain the production. The road is proposed to be asphalt. Mr. Schafer said he had an easement for the walkway.

Mr. Schafer also stated that there would be break away gates to Providence. This will be helpful in the event there is a problem at the neighboring schools – the ride to the hospital will not have to go out onto Grand River.

Member Kocan asked Civil Engineer Ben Croy about the pathway/road. Mr. Schmitt responded that the road will be used for a pedestrian walkway. There is not an additional sidewalk proposed until about halfway through the site – then the road curves to the south to get to the oil derricks, and a pathway continues to the east, ultimately ending at the Edison corridor. Mr. Croy said that a road is a road and the City wouldn’t want to consider a road a pathway. Mr. Schafer said that the road will only be used a couple times per month. The road and path could be separated. The oil company agreed to tear the road out when they abandon the wells. Mr. Schafer felt that it could be used as the path based on the infrequency of the road use. He offered to put signage up for pedestrians alerting them of the possibility of vehicle traffic. Mr. Croy said this would be looked into; there is not a similar situation existing for comparison. Mr. Croy thought that separating the walkway from the road would probably be a better option.

Member Kocan said that the Traffic Review preferred a second entrance off of Wixom Road. Traffic Consultant Steve Dearing from OHM addressed the Planning Commission. He said that in light of the density and layout of the site, the Applicant should be required to provide a second point of full-time access – not just an emergency access. One can easily see that if something happens to the east of the divided entry, over 100 units would be isolated. Emergency services can back-feed off from Providence’s ring road, but the homeowners are hamstrung, in terms of being able to get in and out of their development. The little median feature doesn’t count as a second point of access. With over 160 units, then there really should be another access. He considered the Providence access and the stub to the north. He agreed that the stub is not currently depicted in a good location. It is stubbing out to wetlands. When, if ever, would that stub ever be extended? Given the layout of the development, Mr. Dearing felt the only reasonable location for a secondary access is to use the southern road, currently the field drive to the oil derricks, incorporating that road into the development. This would require driveway spacing waivers, but those are preferred over the risk of total isolation of a development of this size.

Member Kocan asked about the required width of that road. Mr. Dearing responded that he would look for the road to be designed as a full time access. It should be developed to City standards for a street.

Member Kocan asked about the access through the industrial site. Mr. Dearing said that he could imagine that the industrial landowners could theoretically extend a road down to this development from Grand River, but that is highly unlikely.

Member Kocan asked how wide the road should be. Mr. Dearing said that currently is designed at about 22 feet. The City standard presumes that there is the potential for on street parking. Units could theoretically be designed on this road. The width should then be 27 or 28 feet. If no parking is allowed on the street, then it could be reduced to whatever the Fire Department would consider to be acceptable – probably no less than 24 feet.

Member Kocan said this request would require a redesign of the property. Member Kocan thought that City Council should know this information from the Traffic Consultant. It is the Planning Commission’s discretion and requirement to review this information. She noted that this will add another curb cut onto Wixom Road. Mr. Dearing agreed, but he said that two access points would dilute the reliance on one point of access. Traffic is being spread out. It minimizes the burden at any one point. Mr. Dearing understood that the City has always requested less curb cuts, but there must be a balance between providing access that does not go too far in the direction of becoming a minimalist. As this development is laid out, there is not a lot of potential for cross access, which the development should offer. A second, full time access should be provided on this development.

Member Kocan asked about the entrance, and whether it was lined up with Catholic Central. Mr. Dearing said it was lined up with Island Lake. There is no traffic light in place nor is one proposed.

Member Kocan did not support putting the sidewalks up against the curb, though she said that she hated to see overhangs onto the sidewalks. The question becomes whether twenty feet is enough based on the size of cars people drive today. This becomes an issue when the setback is measured from the back of curb, as opposed to the setback being measured from the right-of-way. This will be a problem every time the City allows an R-T development. Mr. Schmitt said this will be a recurring concern for developments that fall under Section 2514 – the additional road standards. Most notably, R-T is the biggest of the offenders.

Member Kocan asked if the City has ever been challenged over the setback requirements for multiple or R-T developments. Mr. Schmitt said that the City has two R-T developments; both complied with the requirement. One development had exterior yards. The other development had back-to-back units and they met the requirements.

Chair Cassis believed that the Planning Commission has outlined the issues that need to be addressed. He said he sat on the Master Plan and Zoning Committee when this plan came forward. The Committee agreed to the concept of rezoning this site, because of the many things that the Planning Commission has already stated. The Committee felt this would be a good transition use from the school to the commercial property to the north. It would also be good, because it would replace an industrial site that is not too attractive. It would be out of place as far as zoning is concerned. It will be surrounded by different kinds of zoning.

The density is troubling. Chair Cassis was also concerned about the traffic. Chair Cassis asked about the southerly road that Mr. Dearing suggested be made into a full time access. He wondered if a fire truck came in that entrance and went to the end, how would he connect to the road. Mr. Dearing explained that the second point of access would require a redesign of the site. On a conceptual level, Mr. Dearing suggested that beyond the wetland, there are multiple paths that could be taken. If another road was placed on the plan, it could be linked to the other road. A firetruck would have a loop to follow that would get him back out onto Wixom Road. Chair Cassis said that a redesign might reduce the density by one or two lots. Mr. Dearing agreed.

Chair Cassis asked the Traffic Consultant what he thought of a cul-de-sac being added to the east. Mr. Dearing located the area on the site plan. Chair Cassis was trying to figure out a way for a firetruck to have another option for turning around. Mr. Dearing said it appears the stub to the north is not reasonable because of the difference in zoning and the location of the wetland. A more conventional subdivision would have the north-south intersect with the east-west in a simple right angle. An eyebrow could be added, which may not result in the loss of a unit. It would be oriented to be diagonally southwest. Chair Cassis asked that Mr. Schmitt and Mr. Schafer take note of this discussion.

Mr. Schmitt discussed the issue of density, and said it appears the Applicant is seeking a higher density than the site yields. Whether or not a different type of product can be proposed is another question. The Applicant could build a narrower unit. It is unlikely that the Applicant’s proposed density is attainable on this site. The 172 number is outright over the density. Chair Cassis commended Mr. Schmitt for his work on this project.

Chair Cassis said he took to heart the comments made at the City Council level. For instance, Member Lorenzo said that R-1 was feasible on this site. Chair Cassis felt the proposed designed provided too much monotony. He would like to see the development broken up a bit, and not at the sacrifice of too many units, although he agreed there were quite a few units on the proposal. Chair Cassis would like to see the health, safety and welfare issues addressed – specifically the roads, setbacks, etc. Chair Cassis said that the property doesn’t have to be so dense in order to sell the units. The value of the units would be enhanced if the Applicant would consider the comments made at this meeting. Chair Cassis noted that Toll Brothers does have this type of unit in their inventory, though Island Lake has a lake. There is no lake on this property.

Chair Cassis said that a different flavor must be provided with this development. Space and accessibility are important issues. He thought even more units were planned for the Island Lake property, and Catholic Central brings traffic with their sporting events; therefore traffic issues must be considered, which will increase the value and looks of the development.

Chair Cassis asked the Planning Department and the Consultants to continue working with the Applicant to make the PRO Ordinance work such that the development becomes an enhancement to the community. Chair Cassis thought that the PRO needed a little more teeth in it in order to reduce the variance requests from the Applicant. Chair Cassis felt that Mr. Wizinsky would also prefer that a better looking development enhanced the property adjacent to his. Chair Cassis suggested that the Wizinsky historic home was "the lake" of this development.

Mr. Schafer said that he didn’t have a real issue with most of the comments made. He said he was limited with the access design due to the narrowness of the property. He said he was looking for the "give and take" allowed under the PRO Ordinance. He said that some issues could be alleviated. He asked whether it would be appropriate to ask for setback reduction on the side where the parks are located, to try to create relief in the middle of the project. His reasoning was those homes would be backing up to permanent open space. He thought the rest the property could come more into conformance with that relief.

Mr. Schafer said he was just informed by his wetland consultant that there is an entire area of wetlands that is unaccounted for on his plan. He said that the stub street would line up with woodlands if he moved it. If the stub street remains as far to the east as possible, it would be better than bringing the stub through the back end of a building. Mr. Schafer said if the Planning Commission finds the proposed access point infeasible, he would come back with a plan without the point. He would allow the Providence access to remain, and he will continue to work on another Wixom Road access, if he felt that was the appropriate way to go. He located an area where he planned on providing Conservation Easements. He said his goal was not to "skinny" the units down because this is meant to be an upscale development. He committed to connecting all sidewalks, even in front of Wizinskys, the school and the park land.

Mr. Schafer said they would again review the architectural requirements, but he would be seeking relief if necessary. He felt that the traffic, wetland and woodland issues were resolved, he would just be redesigning the one section for the next review.

Member Avdoulos felt this was a nice project, and he felt that it will help enhance the prominence of the Wizinsky property, which is a landmark along Beck Road. He hoped that City Council would keep in mind the comments regarding the importance of the emergency access to Providence that this property will provide for the schools.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Member Kocan asked for clarification on the sidewalk stipulation. Mr. Schmitt responded that the Planning Department would expect that the sidewalk would extend to the school. He thought that the motion was to extend the sidewalk to the south property line of Wildlife Woods Park, which states the same thing.

Member Kocan asked whether a Same Side Driveway Spacing Waiver was necessary in light of the driveway to the north. Mr. Schmitt responded no, but that this issue be re-addressed at the time of Preliminary Site Plan review.

Member Kocan noted that the Applicant has discussed with the Planning Commission the lining up of his driveway to what exists across the street.

Member Kocan thought that the motion discussed re-aligning the roads for a secondary full-time access.

Member Kocan discussed rear yard setbacks. She said the Applicant has suggested seeking a variance or relief for the properties on the north and south. If all of the other conditions were taken into consideration, Member Kocan would look to allow less setback along the outside than she would on a back-to-back property line. She still questioned whether every single deck would need to go to the ZBA. That is a big issue. She said there was a comment that Multiple requires less setback, but many times the decks are attached to the buildings, and they don’t come out anywhere near as far as the living areas of walkouts and separate housing units. There is a considerable difference.

Member Avdoulos said that the issue regarding the relief with the setbacks is part of the minutes. City Council can work with the Applicant on this issue. Member Kocan said that the motion stated that the Applicant should comply with the setback. Member Avdoulos agreed, at least in the center, the location of the back-to-back units. Member Kocan said that would be amending the motion. Mr. Schmitt said he wished to clarify this discussion so that the intent is understood. He iterated that the stipulation provides that it would be more preferable that the back-to-back setbacks would comply with the Ordinance; variances on the unit setbacks along the exterior property line would be more acceptable.

Member Avdoulos said that the concern was if the Applicant looks at realigning the site and there’s a need for any kind of relief to create undulation or get the secondary access in, the recommendation is that the rear yards abutting the property line would receive the adjustment. At least there is open area in those locations. That allowance would be only if everything worked with a new design.

Member Meyer added that Member Avdoulos used the word "minimum" regarding the setbacks as well. Member Avdoulos said it was difficult to pin down a specific number right now – will they need five feet? Ten feet? Member Avdoulos said that it could be left as is, and the developer can go before City Council and if it makes sense then City Council can review our minutes and make their decision. Mr. Schmitt suggested that the motion state if a variance is needed then it would be along the exterior property lines for the setback issue. Member Avdoulos did not know how he felt about that.

Chair Cassis said that these minutes will be available to explain the motion further. Mr. Schmitt said that the Planning Department would meet with Mr. Schafer prior to the City Council meeting to discuss how the Applicant can comply with each of these items.

Member Kocan said she did not want the Planning Commission to get in trouble by the notion that they "will" grant a waiver for setbacks. She said that maybe it would behoove the Planning Commission not to make that part of the motion; it is just part of the Planning Commission’s thinking – if there is relief to be sought, perhaps that is one area to consider, given the other conditions that things on the site are reorganized.

City Attorney David Gillam responded that he is comfortable with either language options. Either way, this is a recommendation that goes to City Council. It is their determination on whether this is a proposal that meets the eligibility requirements for the PRO. The next step is for the PRO Agreement to be hammered out to City Council’s satisfaction.

Member Kocan appreciated Mr. Schafer working with Staff. She said her "no" vote would indicate her disappointment in putting R-T against Light Industrial. This is a negative factor to the people who have owned the property to the north. She did think that Mr. Schafer was working in the right direction.

The Public Hearing was opened for possible recommendation to City Council to amend Chapter 28, "Signs", of the City of Novi code in order to add a provision in Section 28-8, "Permitted in all districts", relating to temporary signs on commercial structures with limited building glass area on the front façade, subject to certain regulations.

Planner Tim Schmitt explained that Council Member Capello made this recommendation for change to the Sign Ordinance. His request was made at the September 26, 2005 City Council meeting. The City Attorney researched the issue.

Currently businesses are permitted to have signs on the interior of their building’s windows. Only 25% of the glass area may be covered by signage. There is no limitation on the amount of glass that a business may have. There is no limitation on the type of materials. These are signs that are placed on the inside of the windows. These signs must reference a current, temporary marketing effort or some promotional activity. The signs cannot be illuminated. These signs must be removed within thirty days.

Mr. Schmitt said that the existing Ordinance also allows for "closed" and "open" signs. Member Capello brought up that buildings with lesser amounts of glass are at a disadvantage. Their 25% covers less area than buildings that have more glass. The City Attorney reviewed this and drafted the language that was presented to the Planning Commission for this Public Hearing.

Mr. Schmitt said the proposal before the Planning Commission would add an additional sign on the exterior of the building, would have to be physically attached to the building, and the building’s existing front façade must have less than 12.5% glass. Signage that would be allowed would again, be of a promotional, temporary nature. The size would be twelve square feet, regardless of the glass percentage. The signage would have to have a structural frame that is structurally attached to the building. This is similar to the "poster frame signs" that one might see at a gas station. Again, the message can only remain for thirty days and it cannot be illuminated.

Mr. Schmitt said that the permanent structure can remain attached to the building ad infinitum. The sign itself would have a shelf life of thirty days.

The Planning Department has taken a look at this concept, and so has the Neighborhood Services Department. This is the Department that regulates signage in the City. Both departments recommend against adopting this proposal. First, there is no way to regulate this concept. Second, there has only been one complaint received pertaining to this particular section of the Ordinance. It does not appear to affect a great number of buildings in the City. The Planning Department believes this amendment would change the way that the City reviews façades. Currently the glass component is removed from the calculations. There are limited circumstances where glass would count. The Planning Department is concerned that this amendment could change the type of façades coming forward, because glass would become more prominent than the building material itself.

Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing after determining that no one from the audience wished to speak. No correspondence was received.

Member Wrobel did not support the request. He did not see the need for this change. He said that the City spends so much time trying to make the City look good, and this request seems to be a step backward. People who build here should know the City’s Ordinance. In the rare instance that this could be an issue, the business owner has the right to appeal to the ZBA. He concluded that this amendment is unnecessary.

Member Kocan had a hard time with the request. Is the City trying to be equal? The City cannot be equal because all of the buildings are different sizes. It is not equitable because the sign allowed on this type of building would actually be larger than what is allowed on a building with more glass. She did not support the 4’x3’ size.

If City Council wants to adopt this amendment, then verbiage pertaining to the "permanent fixturing" of the sign frames should be added to the Ordinance. Member Kocan recommended the language, "…permanently affixed on the front exterior" for number 17.

Member Kocan said that she would recommend that the sign not exceed 36 inches in any dimension. Mr. Schmitt clarified that the 3.5 foot dimension was limited to the "open" and "closed" signs.

Member Kocan said that if there was a building with 1,000 square feet, a sign could be erected as big as 250 square feet. She did not think that was equitable. Mr. Schmitt did believe that regardless of how much glass there is, a business can cover 25% with signage.

Member Kocan asked about recent Sign Ordinance amendments. Director of Planning Barbara McBeth recalled there was a change to the language pertaining to non-commercial signs (political), and there was discussion regarding signage that is placed in the window.

Member Kocan said that a reference in "d" should be "c" and not "b."

Member Kocan did not support the request.

Member Gutman said it appeared that the intent of this amendment was to correct a perceived inequity in City signage. Mr. Schmitt said that at this time only one business has complained about this section of the Ordinance. Member Gutman suggested that without understanding the nature of this text amendment request, approving this update could potentially create more inequity. He could not support the request.

Member Meyer agreed that more clarification was needed. He was not able to connect signage placement with discrimination against business owners. It could set a precedent for the City having to approve Ordinance amendments every time a complaint is received. He could not support the text amendment.

Member Avdoulos felt the role of Neighborhood Services would certainly change with this text amendment. He thought that it might result in sign frames being plastered all over strip centers, detracting from the building and taking away from what the businesses are supposed to be doing. He encouraged the use of signs for wayfinding, not for point of purchase sale literature. He could not support a positive recommendation.

Chair Cassis believed the same thing. He understood that Member Capello was trying to correct a problem, but with this amendment he will have created more. There are different sized windows throughout the City. By changing this language, the City would have to hire someone to police the issue. The Ordinance allows for signage on a percentage basis and it works. Any business businesses man who thinks that window signage is clutter will not place signs in his window. Those who feel they need all those signs are few in number. He recommended not tampering with the Ordinance.

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Avdoulos:

Chair Cassis called for a brief recess.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of John Allen of Monal Construction for Preliminary Site Plan, Wetland Permit, Woodland Permit and Storm Water Management Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 15, south of Grand River Avenue, east of Taft Road, in the I-1, Light Industrial District. The Applicant is proposing to construct a small dental office.

Planner Tim Schmitt described the property. The Applicant is proposing to create this parcel after the site plan is approved. The property fronts on Taft Road, is zoned I-1 and master planned for Light Industrial uses. To the north are homes fronting on Taft Road, zoned I-1 and master planned for Light Industrial, and some light industrial buildings, zoned I-1 and master planned for Light Industrial. To the south is vacant land, zoned R-A and master planned for Light Industrial. To the west is Andes Hills, zoned R-2 and master planned for 1.65 Residential units per acre. To the east are vacant land, zoned I-1 and master planned Light Industrial, and industrial buildings fronting on Grand River, zoned I-1 and master planned Industrial.

According to the Wetland Map, the property does not appear to have any wetlands. There is a small wetland along the frontage and a stream along the north side. The Woodland Map does not indicate any cover on the subject property. There is one regulated tree.

The clinic would be situated closer to Taft Road, with a detention in the far east. The parking lot would be in the middle. The building is approximately 3,000 square feet.

The Planning Review did not recommend approval of the plan for two reasons. Additional setback must be provided and the Applicant should be able to comply with this request. A City Council Waiver is required to postpone the boardwalk along Taft Road. Given the City’s proclivity toward building and filling in sidewalk gaps, the Planning Department does not support the request.

The Wetland Review indicated minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. The review revolves around the boardwalk being constructed. As currently shown, there are no impacts. The Wetland Permit has been brought forward for the boardwalk activity. If the boardwalk is waived, a Permit will not be needed.

The Woodland Review recommends approval. The one regulated tree is a 48-inch black willow which is falling apart. The Woodland Consultant recommended removing it because it appears to be posing a hazard at this time.

The Landscape Review recommends approval subject to a Planning Commission Waiver for the right-of-way berm and planting requirements near the wetland along Taft Road.

The Traffic Review does not recommend approval. There are two Driveway Spacing Waivers required – a Same Side Driveway Spacing Waiver with respect to a driveway to the south, and an Opposite Side Driveway Spacing Waiver with respect to a drive across Taft Road. Neither poses major traffic concerns. Both are older, existing buildings that will likely be redeveloped at some point in the future.

The Engineering Review indicated approval subject to two City Council Waivers. The Applicant is not proposing to tap into the City’s water system. As a result, a Waiver is required for his not placing the required water main along the Taft Road frontage. Each development in the City is required to place the water main and build it to City standards. A Waiver is required for the lack of sufficient flow on the site. The on-site well is not going to support the necessary flow under the Design and Construction Standards, which is 4,000 gallons per minute.

The Façade Review indicated that a Section 9 Waiver is required, or the building must be redesigned. It is located in the restrictive Region 1. There was some confusion on this issue, whether or not Taft Road qualified under the definition of a major thoroughfare. It does, and the Applicant has agreed to do what he can to meet the intent of the Ordinance.

The Fire Department Review does not recommend approval. There is a lack of water flow on the site. There is not a fire hydrant within 175 feet of the building. Both items are Design and Construction Standard waivers.

Robert Allen, the Applicant’s architect, addressed the Planning Commission. John Allen is the Construction Manager. Dr. Minns is currently located in Novi. A corner of the site is a natural wetland. His design of the site was meant to respect that wetland. It is an excellent buffer for the residential across the street. The site is zoned Light Industrial; the residential properties in the area will likely remain residential, so the intent was to design something complementary in scale and type.

Mr. Allen said that this building will only house one dentist. It is a low intensity use. A dental office is not considered a high fire hazard.

Mr. Allen said they would commit to constructing the boardwalk immediately upon the northerly parcel being developed. They did not want to disrupt the wetlands until such time as necessary. This makes sense, though if City Council does not agree, they would build the boardwalk as required.

Mr. Allen said that the parking lot has a turnaround tail. When the curb and gutter was added to the design, the tail became only nine feet from the property line, not ten feet. They will revise the plan.

The concerns of the Fire Department are important to discuss. The Fire Marshal wants a sixteen inch water main brought from Grand River. This is approximately 400 feet. This would cost about $250,000. That is prohibitive. It is not addressing a need for this particular business. A dental office has very light water usage. Most of the equipment uses bottled water. The issue has to do with fire protection. Dr. Minns would agree to participate in the placement of a water main in front of his building; but to saddle him with the burden of the entire main would make this project not feasible. This property is probably smaller than most homes in Novi, and is probably less hazardous.

Mr. Allen said that his landscape design was meant to reduce the impacts on the wetland.

Mr. Allen said there are not really any options on driveway placement. The location presented is the optimal place. There won’t be that much traffic generated to create a traffic hazard.

Mr. Allen said that he was under the impression that a Light Industrial District would yield a Region 3 façade. They were surprised that Region 1 applies to this site. This means no siding or concrete masonry units are allowed. The design will be revised.

Mr. Allen said they would address the setback requirement and the façade issue. They understand that they must go to City Council to seek variances.

Chair Cassis opened the floor for public comment:

Matthew Quinn: Represented Roger Levine and Larry Santos, the property owners. He said this project has been worked on for quite some time. The water issue has been the hold-up. He asked the Planning Commission to approve the plan. He said that it would not be appropriate to make this Applicant supply the water main since the property is serviced by a well.

Member Wrobel read the correspondence into the record:

Bernard Assemany, 26444 Taft: Approved of the plan.

Miracle Software Systems, 23800 W. Ten Mile, Ste. 260, Southfield: Approved of the plan.

Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing.

Mr. Schmitt said that there are two separate water issues – one is providing the main and the other is connecting to the main. Mr. Schmitt wished to clarify that the Applicant was seeking waivers for both. There have been instances where people have put in their portion of the water main, anticipating the future connection. The connection is the issue relating to the 4,000 gallon per minute flow.

Member Kocan asked what the requirement actually is. Civil Engineer Ben Croy explained the first issue is whether the waiver for the 4,000 gallons per minute flow is warranted. The other issue is that the City expects each development to do their part in following the City’s Master Plan, which means this Applicant should put the main along their frontage. Putting in their section without a connection is not ideal if the line is going to remain dead for a long time. If there is another development coming in, then the City may wish to pursue this Applicant putting their section in place. In this case, the City may not see that Grand River connection for some time.

Chair Cassis said that there are some approved developments along Taft Road and Eleven Mile; he asked from where those projects got their water. Mr. Schmitt said that Asbury was getting its water from Central Park Estates. The closest project to this was the rezoning of Eleven Mile and Taft (Valbuena Rezoning), which is now being developed by Mozart Homes. They will likely be getting their water from the school property to the south. Andes Hills is actually on wells.

Member Kocan asked the Applicant about putting in his own main. Mr. Allen said that Dr. Minns would tie into the water system when it is available. He would not consider it unreasonable if the City requested him to participate in the payment of this system. If the main were put in now, it would serve no purpose. It will not provide the 4,000 gallon per minute flow nor will it serve a fire hydrant. It would be somewhat absurd to disturb the wetland, change the grade, put a pipe in, and then wait for years for connection. Dr. Minns could put the funds in escrow; he would find that to be a reasonable request. Mr. Allen said they are asking for a waiver for the connection to the Grand River main. They are asking a waiver from supplying their portion of the water main, which would ultimately just be a dead end pipe.

Member Kocan asked if the boardwalk should be in place before the pipe went in. Mr. Croy responded that Member Kocan’s comment is possibly a good argument. It depended on the relationship between the location of the boardwalk and the pipe. If the wetland has to be torn up, it would make sense to do both items at once, or grant a waiver of both at this time.

Member Kocan asked about the escrowing of funds. Member Kocan said that the Planning Commission does not recommend this because no one can be sure of the future cost of a project. She asked what the position was of the Planning Department. Mr. Schmitt responded that the Planning Department’s position on sidewalks is they prefer to have them built. Escrowing for sidewalks has not worked well in the past. The best idea would be to put the main and the boardwalk in at the same time. There is some flexibility in the placement of the water main. The boardwalk should be located one foot within the right-of-way. It would be more palatable to bond or escrow for the main. Mr. Schmitt wished to defer to the Finance Department on this issue. There are mechanisms in place for this process.

Member Kocan noted that the Applicant said he did not need a dumpster. Mr. Schmitt said his interpretation of the Applicant’s comment was that nothing would be stored outdoors. Cans would not be allowed outdoors. The Applicant said that not very much trash is generated. Mr. Allen agreed. Member Kocan confirmed that it is not a requirement of the Ordinance that a dumpster must be provided. Mr. Allen said that they would meet the intent of the Ordinance if the Applicant decides he wanted a dumpster.

Member Kocan asked about the transformer. Mr. Allen said that the transformer would be in the front of the building because of the location of the power lines. They cannot have a pole-mounted transformer. They plan to landscape the pad. The berm would conceal most of the transformer as well. Member Kocan asked if the transformer is allowed in the front of the building. Mr. Schmitt said that he thought they would be regulated like an accessory structure, which is not allowed in the front yard. The City would encourage its placement on the north side of the building. There is some room there. Mr. Schmitt was not sure of the line location. Mr. Allen said they would revise their location.

Member Kocan said that the City Council waiver requests are a City Council judgment call. These items could be a fire hazard issue. Mr. Schmitt said that this is an odd situation. This commercial building is in "an island." The Fire Marshal has conceded that a waiver might have to be requested.

Member Kocan confirmed with Landscape Architect Lance Shipman that the landscape waivers pertain to the wetland in the area. The City would prefer to leave wetlands in their natural state.

Member Kocan said there weren’t really any alternatives for the driveway, so she supported the waiver requests. She felt the design maximized the distance.

Member Kocan asked that the Applicant consider moving the handicapped space closer to the walkway. Mr. Allen agreed to make that change.

Member Kocan confirmed that the transformer would be moved from the front yard. Mr. Allen said they would take care of it.

Member Kocan appreciated a Novi business relocating in Novi. She didn’t necessarily like all the waiver requests.

Member Avdoulos appreciated the Applicant staying in Novi, and his willingness to work with the City. Member Avdoulos asked the Applicant what he would do to his façade. Member Avdoulos noted that the plan does attempt to be complementary to the residential in the area. Mr. Allen said that the building form will remain the same. The siding will be replaced with brick for the low section. The tower will be brick or EIFS. The percentages would meet the intent of the Ordinance. The design would remain a residential shape. Member Avdoulos appreciated the low roof and larger overhangs. Member Avdoulos personally liked the siding in light of the mix, but he did not want to set a precedent in that zoning district. He would prefer siding to EIFS, and would support a Section 9 Waiver for the use of siding with brick.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Kocan:

Member Kocan was concerned about a brick building with an aluminum tower. Member Avdoulos responded that the materials list in the Façade Ordinance should be reviewed, since new materials are being developed all the time. In this case, the Applicant is proposing a cement fiber board. It has the wood look. It is more straight and true and resists fire, insects and is a lot tougher. This is becoming more and more popular. Mr. Allen said it is a pre-finished material. It is rigid and looks like wood siding. In the case of the tower, they had shown a shingle finish, so this would be an accent. It would be very attractive. It is very durable, similar to brick or masonry, because it is made out of cement. Member Avdoulos said it would be more complementary than the use of stucco or EIFS.

Member Kocan asked if the colors would remain. Mr. Allen said that they may move from the light tones to a red brick. A complementary tone would be used for the siding. The owner would have to weigh in on the color scheme. Mr. Schmitt said that the next façade submittal would be reviewed for compliance.

Chair Cassis said that the Planning Commission comments will be constructive. He thought this review would result in a better building. He appreciated Dr. Minns remaining in the community.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Kocan:

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Kocan:

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Kocan:

Member Kocan asked about the Wetland Consultant’s comment regarding off-site drainage to the north. Civil Engineer Ben Croy explained that there is an existing water course in that area that can definitely accept this plan’s water. Mr. Croy asked that the Applicant clarify this on their plans.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth described the project. The subject property is currently developed with the Twelve Oaks Mall and is an existing regional shopping center containing 1.2 million square feet. The property to the north is developed with various retail uses along Twelve Mile, and on the north side of Twelve Mile are the Oakland Hills cemetery and office uses. To the west are various commercial uses fronting on Novi Road. To the south are vacant land, also controlled by Twelve Oaks Mall, the ITC corridor and I-96 expressway. To the east is the Waltonwood development, along with the Enclaves residential development.

The Master Plan for Land Use recommends Regional Commercial uses for the mall and surrounding properties to the east and west. Also to the east the Master Plan recommends PD-1 uses for the property occupied by The Enclave and Waltonwood. To the north and west the Master Plan recommends PD-2 uses, with the underlying zoning being RC, Regional Center.

The subject property is zoned RC, Regional Center, as are the properties on the west side of Novi Road. To the south the property is zoned R-A, Residential Acreage. To the east the property is zoned RM-1, Low Density, Low-Rise Multiple-Family Residential. To the north the property is zoned OS-1, Office Service, and R-4, One Family Residential, for the cemetery.

The woodland and wetland maps show light and medium woodlands and wetlands on the south part of the property, outside of where the proposed development will take place.

The proposed site plan shows several changes and additions to the existing 1.2 million square foot shopping mall. As a result of the changes, the mall will total 1.5 million square feet gross leasable area (GLA) regional shopping center:

Addition of 97,000 square feet (GLA) to the main mall on two levels.

Addition of Nordstrom department store totaling 169,000 square feet in two levels.

Expansion of the existing Marshall Field’s department store by 60,000 square feet on two levels. Renovation of the existing three level department store will also take place.

Relocation of the existing ring road on the southwest side of the shopping center for an expansion to the existing parking lot of approximately 450 parking spaces. This parking lot expansion is on a vacant parcel recently rezoned to RC, Regional Center from R-A, Residential Acreage.

Section 1703.4 of the Zoning Ordinance provides for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation for site plans within the RC, Regional Center District, to City Council.

The Twelve Oaks Mall and Nordstrom expansions are on property owned by Twelve Oaks Mall. The proposed expansion is directly in line with existing mall entrance, and otherwise generally exceeds the required 100-foot setback from the existing lot lines.

The Marshall Field’s expansion is on property owned by May Department Store. Expansion is directly aligned with the existing store. The existing setback from the lot line is approximately sixty feet from the south property line. The property to the south is owned by Twelve Oaks Mall and is part of the parking lot. As a part of the shopping center development, it is the Planning Department’s opinion that a setback variance is justified, as the addition is a logical expansion of the existing department store.

The shortest setback of the new building to the exterior property lines is 150 feet for the location at the corner of the new Nordstrom department store.

Ms. McBeth said that the maximum building height allowed in the RC, Regional Center zoning district, is 45 feet and 3 stories. The Marshall Field’s and mall expansion building elevations are within the height limitations. The Nordstrom department store proposes a building height of 45 feet, four inches, which exceeds Ordinance standards. The Applicant will be asked to modify the plans at the time of Final Site Plan review to be within 45 feet, or seek a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Ms. McBeth said that the exterior lighting information was just provided to the Plan Review Center and an analysis was prepared, with a cover memo and placed in front of each Commissioner this evening. The plans do not demonstrate compliance with the Ordinance as currently written as the poles exceed the maximum height allowed, and the ratio of average to minimum lighting is excessive. The plans show the relocation of two poles and the removal of four poles within the revised parking lot areas. It is the Planning Department’s opinion that variances are needed for these two discrepancies, but are warranted since it appears that the lighting will be consistent with what was approved and installed previously. The Applicant will be asked to provide additional information and make corrections, as noted.

Additional end islands and landscaping are required to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan Review, as are the need to have additional pedestrian access as described in the review letter. The Planning Department has worked with the Applicant, and the following two recommendations appear to be acceptable to the Applicant for improved pedestrian and bike facilities:

The sidewalk from the upper level Marshall Fields entrance should be extended to the northwest access to the ring road. This would assist pedestrians in navigating from the parking lot to the main entrance.

Because of the large number of residents within a two mile radius east of M-5 and north of I-96 (1,767 households in the 2000 census) and due to the largely complete system of shared safety paths in this area, the Applicant should provide bicycle parking facilities to encourage the health of the employees of the mall and residents of Novi, as well as to reduce traffic congestion in the area.

The Wetland Review indicated that a Wetland Minor Use Permit is recommended for administrative approval at the time of Final Site Plan to fill a small wetland area in the new parking lot.

The Woodland Review indicated that there are no regulated woodland areas within the area of the proposed improvements.

The Landscaping Review indicated that the Planning Commission needs to consider the following items:

Planning Commission Waiver of parking lot landscaping requirements in the parking areas affected by the new construction.

Planning Commission Waiver of the requirement for a landscaped island every 15 parking spaces, again in the parking areas affected by the new construction.

The Traffic Engineer’s review recommended modifications that will need to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan review.

The Civil Engineer’s review recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan.

The Fire Marshal’s review recommended approval subject to corrections on the next submittal of plans.

The Façade Review indicated that Section 9 Waivers are recommended for all three façade requests, as the proposed building materials closely resemble limestone. Three separate review letters were provided. The review letters for Marshall Field’s and the Mall expansion proposes a majority of brick, with smaller amounts of limestone, glass, trim materials and EIFS. The Section 9 Waiver is needed for the precast materials with the exposed aggregate which, in the opinion of the consulting architect, consists of a fine aggregate finish which closely resembles limestone. The review letter for Nordstrom again shows a majority of brick, with less than forty percent of each façade being characterized as precast colored exposed aggregate material. Again, the Façade Consultant recommends approval of the Section 9 Waiver, since the material consists of a fine aggregate finish which closely resembles limestone.

Ms. McBeth located the area designated for the parallel barrier-free parking spaces. They are proposed near the Marshall Field’s expansion. Ms. McBeth noted that there were also one-way traffic aisles in the same vicinity. Ms. McBeth said that while there is some merit in providing the two parallel spaces, the Traffic Consultant, Civil Engineer and Planning Department found that there might be several problems with their location. Parallel parking can be tricky, and Ms. McBeth noted that there is a one-way aisle that creates a problem for those spaces. Ms. McBeth said the recommendation is for the plans to be modified to show standard barrier-free parking spaces.

Ms. McBeth said that this expansion has been expected for some time. She introduced John Eggert and Bruce Heckman, part of the Taubman team working on this project. They have coordinated the efforts between their company, Marshall Field’s and Nordstrom.

John Eggert, Development Manager for the Taubman Company, addressed the Planning Commission. He agreed with Ms. McBeth on the items she mentioned the Taubman Company would be modifying on the next set of plans submitted.

Mr. Eggert introduced Bruce Heckman, Vice President of Development for the Taubman Company; Bob Tremonti, Director of Planning and Design; Dan Jones, General Manager of Twelve Oaks; Paul Schmitt, Project Manager for Nordstrom. Mr. Eggert said that all of their consultants were present at the meeting as well.

Mr. Eggert stated that they are seeking waivers for the façades and for the landscaping. He offered to answer any questions the Planning Commission might have.

Member Kocan noted that the Planning Commission and City Council had just amended the parking standards for this zoning district. Member Kocan said that with this new plan, there is now a net loss of 547 parking spaces. Her concerns that she voiced during the parking standard text amendment Public Hearing is now realized. It is important that something be done, perhaps off-site employee parking, for the holidays, because she knows this lot will be full otherwise. This problem results in cars backing up on Novi Road and onto the expressway. Even though there are additional lanes on the I-96 exit ramp, it is still a very real concern. There are residents and a retirement complex in this area that must also be considered.

Member Kocan asked if the building height overage included the HVAC equipment. She noted that the Applicant has agreed to bring the building height into conformance. Ms. McBeth responded that the actual numbers would have to be confirmed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal – that the HVAC equipment does not exceed the five-foot allowance.

Member Kocan said that typically when a landscape waiver is granted, the City knows how much landscaping is required, and the City knows how big the deficit is. Member Kocan said that with this plan, neither number has been provided. She did not know how close the Applicant is to meeting the intent of the Ordinance.

Landscape Architect Lance Shipman said that the Applicant’s landscape architect has brought numbers to share at the meeting. Mr. Shipman has not reviewed them, but he assumed that they were correct. The mechanism they used to tabulate those numbers appears to be correct. Their landscape architect, Scott Black of Grissim Metz, displayed his numbers for the Planning Commission.

Mr. Shipman said that there is a landscape square footage requirement. The Applicant is going to fall well short of the requirements, due mostly to the nature of the facility, which is a high-vehicular use facility. There is a lot of pavement. There is a tree requirement based on the square footage requirement. They will not have sufficient land area in the areas of disruption to plant the required trees. They will be seeking a waiver for that. There is a limitation of fifteen spaces in a row without a parking lot island. They are seeking a waiver for that. For this facility, Staff would support that request, mostly because of the type of snow removal equipment that they use, which is a front end loader and a grader as opposed to a pickup truck with a blade on the front. Those islands would be picked off rather quickly after a couple of winters.

Mr. Shipman said that there is going to be a request for a landscape irrigation waiver. Currently, they would like to seek a waiver for the end islands in the parking lot. As a general observation, what they are proposing is better than what exists on the site. There are no end islands at this time. Now they are introducing end islands in the construction area, which is an improvement. It may fall short of the requirement, but it is an improvement over what is currently there. It appears that the Applicant is making some attempts to better the scenario.

Mr. Black said that the paperwork distributed shows the various waivers they are seeking. They are requesting waivers for the ten-foot islands between fifteen parking spaces. They seek waivers for the landscaping requirement. He said his handout outlined what is required per the Ordinance, and what they are proposing. They are seeking an irrigation variance. The darker green area on his handout will have irrigation. The lighter green area will not have irrigation.

Member Kocan asked if the plants proposed would live without irrigation. Mr. Black said that they were looking at more native species. These would be more durable. They might include grasses or junipers. Water will be an issue. There is a watering program in place now. The most important time to water is the growing season. They would continue the water program to maintain their investment.

Member Kocan said that 30,500 square feet of landscaping are required and the Applicant is proposing 29,500 square feet. She said 408 trees are required; they are proposing 125. She asked if the landscaped areas already in place might be upgraded with these trees. She understood that these areas are not being immediately impacted by this development, but this is an opportunity to improve the area. Mr. Black and Mr. Eggert said they would look at the unaffected areas of the site to see where there might be opportunities to add additional trees.

Member Kocan said the motion will include the language that the Applicant will continue to work with Staff on these landscaping issues.

Member Kocan asked if there was an opportunity to provide a sidewalk between the RM-2 and the mall. Were there liability issues? Mr. Eggert said there were liability issues. There are safety concerns. There is also the fundamental issue of the sidewalk being used by one single user, and while he understood the desire to have the walkway, he was not sure how much justification there was for a walkway for that user.

Member Kocan said that this property makes a significant impact on the police and fire departments. In the Planning Commission’s recommendation to City Council, it should be noted that the staffing levels of those departments should be evaluated. The review indicated that there will be more police and fire runs.

Mr. Eggert said that Dan Jones could probably address this issue in greater detail. He said this project will increase the tax revenue, which will offset the cost for those services. There are police and fire calls to this property, but a majority of those calls tend to be shoplifting. They are minor offenses. They are non-violent. The fire calls relate to emergency medical calls and are typically of a non-threatening nature – someone has collapsed or fainted.

Member Kocan noted that two lighting variances are required. She said that the average light level proposed (31.4:1 and 15.5:1) is considerably higher than the standard of 4.4:1. She asked if that was what currently existed. Ms. McBeth said she would like to work with the Applicant on this issue. She thought there were areas that were underlighted that could be reviewed. She did not think it would bring the plan into conformance with the 4:1 ratio, but it might decrease it to some extent. She asked that the Planning Commission allow the Planning Department to continue to work on this with the Applicant, and recommend that the Applicant take their request to the ZBA. Member Kocan confirmed with Ms. McBeth that the current mounting height is 65 feet.

Member Kocan said that the plan is kind of squeezed in. She understood that this is a regional center. It is unfortunate that more parking cannot be added around Nordstrom. It is going to be the main draw for a long time. She noted that experts did report that there is enough parking. She was willing to support the request with all of the variances and waivers.

Member Wrobel was looking forward to this project. It is good for Novi. He had a problem with Area C parking. He saw the area as a potential bottleneck problem. The lanes are narrow and very close to the door. People will be lazy and park there. There will be traffic back-up into the aisles. He suggested that the Applicant look at that area for modification.

Member Wrobel asked what the distance was from the Nordstrom and Marshall Field’s doors to the parking lot. He was concerned about people walking out the door and into traffic. The answer was about twenty feet.

Member Wrobel was surprised that Marshall Field’s was expanding. He asked if they would be offering services different from what they offer now. Mr. Eggert could not speak to that. Bob Rich of BHDP asked for clarification. Mr. Rich responded that the existing restaurant and salon will remain. There are plans to remodel some of that area. This is complicated by the fact that Marshall Field’s is now owned by Federated. This new owner is reconsidering all of their properties. He could not promise anything because of the change in ownership.

Member Wrobel was concerned because there might be additional impact to the parking. Mr. Rich responded that he did not really anticipate additional services, but there would be expanded lines. They will probably target a younger, junior audience, more so than they now do. There would not be a radical change to the mix.

Member Meyer thanked the Applicant for the clarification. He wondered if there would be variances for this plan based on that information. He applauded the fact that the landscaping would be improved somewhat. The islands would definitely improve the appeal of this mall. He congratulated Nordstrom for coming to Novi. He said their coming will change the two-mile back-up to the mall to a three-mile back-up.

One of the Applicant’s representatives mentioned that they will be replacing the Marshall Field’s sign.

Member Meyer asked about the four inch height issue. Mr. Eggert said that Nordstrom could respond better. Because this project has to go before the ZBA anyway, they thought it might behoove them just to add the four-inch variance to their list. Internally, they are discussing the issue to determine if the ZBA is the best course of action, or whether there is just a design solution to lower the building.

Member Meyer said that the Applicant should try to request as few variances as possible.

Member Avdoulos said this addition to the mall is very important to many people, including those in his own family. He thought that Birchler Arroyo provided a great community impact study. He knew that the traffic in this area is crazy; he did not know if the old Expo could be used for overflow parking. Now that the Twelve Mile and Beck roadway is open, a lot of the traffic will be alleviated.

Member Avdoulos was in favor of maintaining the same aesthetics. If the tall light poles are already there, then the variance should be extended. He liked the island endcaps, and he said it would be interesting to note whether it will help with traffic flow. It may stop people from cutting diagonally through the parking lots. He was glad that Grissim Metz is working with the City’s Landscape Architect to improve the landscaping. This is a vehicular site.

Member Avdoulos said this was a great project. It is nicely nestled on its site and is a great benefit to the City.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Mr. Shipman said that he has not validated the numbers provided by Grissim Metz. He asked that, "The Applicant continuing to work with Staff to provide parking lot landscaping to the extent feasible" be added to the motion. He asked the City Attorney if a ZBA variance would be required for the irrigation in the islands. David Gillam said it would be appropriate to add the language, "A Zoning Board of Appeals Variance for the lack of landscape irrigation in certain islands"; if it is found to be unnecessary, no harm has been done. The maker and the seconder of the motion agreed to the language.

Member Meyer asked Mr. Shipman what he meant by the term "to the extent feasible" and whether that meant the Planning Commission would review the actual number at a later time. Mr. Shipman responded that the intention is that what is being proposed at this time will be the absolute minimum that will be provided. Mr. Shipman would like to continue to work with the Applicant to capitalize on other potential landscape areas. His concern at the meeting was that he had not yet validated the numbers. He thought this was a cleaner method of proceeding forward.

Member Meyer was concerned that the phrase Mr. Shipman suggested leaves the door wide open. He was looking for more of a balance.

Member Kocan asked whether the removal of the parallel parking spaces should be specifically stated. Ms. McBeth responded that it was in the reviews and did not have to be stated specifically. Mr. Eggert interjected that they have agreed to remove those parking spaces.

Chair Cassis said that Nordstrom has done a fantastic job nationwide and in this area. It will be supportive of this area and the region. He thought the lighting and height concerns were moot in light of the low grade on which the mall is built. He had no problem with those variance requests.

Chair Cassis noted that there has been voluntary improvement on the part of Twelve Oaks with regard to the landscaping. The entrance has been tremendously improved by nice trees. The façades have been improved on the buildings. The entries have been given uplifts. This is a positive impact on the community. Novi welcomes this project and the additional tax revenue. This is a major contributor to the City’s tax base.

Member Kocan did not wish to slight Hudson’s or Marshall Field’s, but Nordstrom is known for its service, and that is how it has such a reputation today. She noted that Marshall Field’s customer service has improved immensely over the last year, and that is a very fine attribute.

Reconsideration of the request of Claudio Rossi of Mirage Development for Preliminary Site Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 26, south of Ten Mile between Meadowbrook Road and the CSX Railroad Tracks, in the R-4, One Family Residential District. The Applicant is proposing to develop the 9.1 acre parcel for twelve single-family residential site condominiums and is requesting the Planning Commission to reconsider their approval stipulation that Lot 3 must be removed from the plan.

City Attorney David Gillam said that his office suggested that this item be placed on the Agenda. On September 28, 2005, the Planning Commission granted a series of approvals for this project, one being for the Preliminary Site Plan. One stipulation was that Lot 3 would be removed from the plan. A conditional approval of the Woodland Permit was also granted – it contained the same stipulation. The Applicant has since had this provision revoked from the Woodland Permit by the City Council. In City Council’s motion, a provision was added that the Applicant must continue to work with the Woodland Consultant on the size and placement of the building envelope, in an effort to preserve as many of the trees on the site as possible.

Mr. Gillam said that in light of this revision, the City Attorney’s office felt it was appropriate to bring the Preliminary Site Plan issue back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. Specifically, the first condition of the motion should be reviewed: Modification of the plans to preserve additional woodlands to the extent feasible, which includes the removal of Lot 3 to maintain the intent and integrity of the Woodland Ordinance. The problem is the language, "which includes the removal of Lot 3." He said that when the Planning Commission voted to reconsider this site plan motion, the action of approval was really nullified. It is not a question of amending a motion, a new motion must now be made.

Mr. Gillam suggested that the Planning Commission bring forward a motion that is essentially identical to the original motion, with the exception of the one clause.

Claudio Rossi of Mirage Development addressed the Planning Commission. He stated that this is a challenging project based on the natural features. They limit the flexibility of the design and significantly reduce the number of units that would otherwise be permitted. The constraints of the property create some practical difficulties with added financial burden, and Mr. Rossi believed that this plan best suits the site and best preserves the natural features.

Chair Cassis asked Mr. Rossi about what he could do to limit the envelope on that lot. He commended Mr. Rossi for his many quality projects in the City, recognizing Mr. Rossi’s efforts to preserve natural features. Mr. Rossi said he would agree to position the envelope in the best location to save the trees; he agreed to work cooperatively with the Woodland Consultant on this task. He also said that they would require the site to house the smallest footprint proposed for this project. Again, this will help work around the trees. There are some grading issues as well, but in general resolution has been made to save as many trees as possible.

Member Kocan said that she made the original motion. She said it broke her heart that the City’s Woodland Ordinance is stated in such a way that lots cannot be removed from a site plan. She understood the legal issues. She appreciated the rationale. She read the minutes from the City Council meeting and appreciated the way in which this was handled. She agreed to restate the motion, but she planned on adding language that specifically addressed Mr. Rossi working with the Consultant on Lots 2,3,4 and 12.

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Avdoulos:

In the matter of the request of Claudio Rossi of Mirage Development for Orchard Hills North, SP05-05a, motion to grant approval of the Preliminary Site Plan, subject to: 1) The Applicant working with Woodland Consultant to modify the plans to preserve additional woodlands to the extent feasible, with particular attention to Lots 2, 3, 4 and 12, and utilizing smallest footprint possible on Lot 3; 2) A City Council Waiver for the lack of sidewalk on the south side of the proposed Doncaster Drive; 3) A City Council Design and Construction Standards Waiver for the length of the proposed cul-de-sac without a secondary point of access (975 feet proposed vs. 800 feet permitted); 4) A Planning Commission Waiver for the lack of a berm adjacent to Novi Ridge Apartments, with the inclusion of additional evergreens; 5) A Planning Commission Waiver for the right-of-way berm and plantings in those areas along Ten Mile with substantial wetlands up against Ten Mile; 6) A Planning Commission Waiver for street trees in those areas along Ten Mile with substantial wetlands; 7) Modification of plans to include the berm adjacent to Orchard Hills Elementary School, with the understanding that the berm will not be 4.5 feet high but needs to be three feet high; and 8) With regard to these landscaping issues, the Applicant will continue to work with Staff regarding the landscaping; for the reason that this is an R-4 subdivision and the development that is being proposed does maintain of the intent and integrity of the Ordinance.

Member Meyer asked the City Attorney if the Planning Commission could dictate what size building can be placed on a lot. Mr. Gillam said that he did not know if the Planning Commission could specifically tell the Applicant what size building is acceptable, but within the scope of the existing Woodland Ordinance the Planning Commission can direct the Applicant to set up the building envelope in such a fashion that minimizes the impact to the protected trees. To a certain extent, that will involve minimizing the size of the building. This is not dictating the size of the building. It merely dictates the use of the building envelope that is permitted. In this particular case, Mr. Rossi has discussed this and has agreed to limit the building size. It would be a different story if the Planning Commission just came out and told someone what size building to place on a lot. The Planning Commission would have to articulate the relationship between the woodlands on site and the building envelope.

In the matter of the request of Claudio Rossi of Mirage Development for Orchard Hills North, SP05-05a, motion to grant approval of the Preliminary Site Plan, subject to: 1) The Applicant working with Woodland Consultant to modify the plans to preserve additional woodlands to the extent feasible, with particular attention to Lots 2, 3, 4 and 12, and utilizing smallest footprint possible on Lot 3; 2) A City Council Waiver for the lack of sidewalk on the south side of the proposed Doncaster Drive; 3) A City Council Design and Construction Standards Waiver for the length of the proposed cul-de-sac without a secondary point of access (975 feet proposed vs. 800 feet permitted); 4) A Planning Commission Waiver for the lack of a berm adjacent to Novi Ridge Apartments, with the inclusion of additional evergreens; 5) A Planning Commission Waiver for the right-of-way berm and plantings in those areas along Ten Mile with substantial wetlands up against Ten Mile; 6) A Planning Commission Waiver for street trees in those areas along Ten Mile with substantial wetlands; 7) Modification of plans to include the berm adjacent to Orchard Hills Elementary School, with the understanding that the berm will not be 4.5 feet high but needs to be three feet high; and 8) With regard to these landscaping issues, the Applicant will continue to work with Staff regarding the landscaping; for the reason that this is an R-4 subdivision and the development that is being proposed does maintain of the intent and integrity of the Ordinance. Motion carried 6-0.

Mr. Gillam addressed the Planning Commission. He said that the City Attorney’s office has discussed Novi’s Woodland Ordinance and now they make the suggestion that there be a Planning Commission training session scheduled, at which this issue can be further discussed.

The Planning Commission members turned in their grammatical corrections for incorporation into the minutes. Additionally, it was noted that on page 13, a reference to the City Council should have been to the Planning Commission. The word "adjacent" was added to that same paragraph. On page 14, the word "know" was omitted by mistake. On page 18, the word "not" was also omitted by mistake.

Moved by Member Meyer, seconded by Member Avdoulos:

Consideration on the request of Howard Friedlander of HEFCO Properties for a one year Preliminary Site Plan extension. The subject property is located in Section 14, at the southwest corner of Twelve Mile and Meadowbrook roads, in the OST, Office Service Technology District. The subject property is 4.68 acres and the Applicant is proposing a two-story office building.

Howard Friedlander addressed the Planning Commission. He said that at this time it is not clear whether he needs the extension. If he receives Final Site Plan approval prior to the expiration date this request is no longer valid. Therefore, he is asking for a conditional site plan extension approval. His plan’s expiration date is November 5, 2005.

Chair Cassis asked why there is a problem. Mr. Friedlander said that the Final Site Plan submittal was returned with the comment, "Approval is recommended provided that the Stamping Set incorporates various minor changes." The minor changes are many items. There are many reviewers. The Applicant made the changes and he believes everything is complete; however, if there is something missing on the resubmittal, it could cause a problem. The resubmittal was turned in on October 12, 2005. So far, the Applicant has been told that the cover sheet did not identify every single sheet, so it has been redone. The photometric plan was a problem and is being corrected at this time. Mr. Friedlander has been asked to make these two changes, but Planner Jason Myers is still waiting for some of the City’s Consultants to confirm their portions of the plan. In the event that the plan is not approved, Mr. Friedlander risks having his plan expire. The Planning Department told him that he should request the extension conditioned on his needing the extension. Mr. Friedlander noted that the conditional nature of his request was not described on the Agenda, so he asked the City Attorney whether this extension would count against him even if his plans are stamped prior to November 5, 2005, and the answer might be yes.

Chair Cassis said that this process does not indicate the problem is with the City. Mr. Friedlander said that the plan is running its natural course. Mr. Friedlander said that he and the City are doing what they can do. There have been changes in the plan and issues are being addressed. He was not complaining about delays; these things take time.

Chair Cassis asked City Attorney David Gillam about this continuing process. It seemed to him that the "clock" has not stopped somewhere. Mr. Gillam thought that Chair Cassis was suggesting that because the review process is ongoing, that the site plan review would not expire. Mr. Gillam disagreed. The Ordinance is fairly clear that regardless of whether the process is ongoing, there are specific timeframes and deadlines. There is a shelf life. If the process wasn’t going on, there wouldn’t be a basis for an extension. Mr. Friedlander has shown good faith in proceeding with his plan. If he hadn’t shown good faith, there would be a basis on which to deny the extension.

Chair Cassis confirmed that the request was for a one-year extension. Mr. Gillam said the Applicant was trying to ensure that his plan did not expire while he waits for approval.

Member Avdoulos described the process. A site plan may be extended three times total. Right now this Applicant is getting his Final Site Plan approval. Member Avdoulos was trying to guage gage what the benefit of getting a contingent approval was.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth said the issue is the Applicant is concerned about running out of time on the earlier approval. If he gets his Final Site Plan approval, then he has one year to begin construction, or he can seek an extension of the Final Site Plan approval. If he doesn’t get the stamping set approved, he would like to get an extension to the Preliminary Site Plan. Ms. McBeth said that the issue is the Applicant can have a total of three extensions. If this Applicant uses one for his Preliminary Site Plan approval, then the "shelf life" of his plan is only three years. If the Applicant doesn’t use one of the extensions on the Preliminary Site Plan, then basically the "shelf life" of his plan is increased to four years, because he can use his remaining extensions on the Final Site Plan. This would benefit him if along the way he seeks to modify anything on the plan prior to the actual construction of the building. Mr. Friedlander said the irony is he doesn’t even know if he needs to worry about this. If he had his way, he would not be extending the plan. Mr. Friedlander noted that he has already extended this plan once. His request is meant to provide him with assurance, that if he needs to extend his approvals in the future, there would be two opportunities to do so, not just one.

Mr. Friedlander needs final approval before he markets the plan. Approval will cement the process. He can have construction documents prepared. He can gather information on his final costs. He can get financing in place. His ability to start construction requires the financing. To get financing, he needs to be sufficiently pre-leased, and a final approval helps that effort, or he needs to add additional equity, which he might be able to do but his ability to do that depends on how other deals he has underway pan out. Time is precious. He has several years invested in this plan. It is a good project that he would like to build, but he doesn’t want to run out of time. Mr. Friedlander would accept the extension without the condition if the Planning Commission refuses to make the extension conditional.

Mr. Friedlander said he did receive two variances. If he does not begin construction prior to October 2006, he would have to go before the ZBA for extensions on those variances. If the variances were to expire, it would not prevent the project from moving forward. He would install the berms in the area where there is no parking, even though they would detract from the project. He could reconfigure the parking lot to take greenbelt buffer off the right-of-way area and put it in the parking lot. The variances were meant to enhance the project. It is not impossible to comply with the requirements, but in this case, the requirements didn’t make sense. That is why the variances were granted. There was a third issue, which is what has taken some time in this process, regarding a dead-end stilted walkway. The Applicant worked out an arrangement whereby he had a future obligation to install the path, but when it came time for the City Official to sign that agreement, he decided he didn’t like that idea. Therefore, Mr. Friedlander reconstructed the retaining walls along Twelve Mile so that the bike path could be put in.

Ms. McBeth told Member Avdoulos that the first extension was granted on October 13, 2004. Today would be extension number 2, and in fall 2006 there could be third extension that took this plan to 2007. The extensions run from the original Planning Commission approval date. Member Avdoulos felt that the extension approval without a condition would still provide the Applicant with a window through November 2007. Mr. Gillam said that the plan’s approval is also influenced by the ZBA variances too. Member Avdoulos asked Mr. Friedlander whether he could be ready by November 2007. He responded that it’s possible and he hoped that would take place. Member Avdoulos has never seen a condition placed on an extension. He did not see a great hardship. The Applicant has up until November 2007 under normal circumstances. He didn’t want to see the Planning Commission get into a position of bartering for time for every site plan approval. He agreed with the request for an extension, but not with the condition.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Kocan:

Mr. Gillam said this was discretionary, even the Planning Commission’s approval of an extension. Chair Cassis said that there are pending issues on the plan under review at this time. It is not yet an approval.

Member Kocan has never seen this situation before. She did not want a condition on the extension. The whole point is for the Applicant to anticipate deadlines and meet them. Member Kocan asked whether the extension could be rescinded at the next meeting if the Applicant received his other approval prior to the deadline. Mr. Gillam said that he believed that would be acceptable, either at the Applicant’s request, or at the request of a Planning Commission member. Member Kocan said that over a span of four years, things change physically in the City, with the Ordinance, etc., and the City doesn’t want site plans sitting out there for an extended period of time.

There were no Matters for Discussion.

Member Kocan thanked Laura Lorenzo and Lou Csordas for their commitment to the City. She respected them and appreciated their efforts.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Kocan:

The meeting adjourned at or about 1:30 a.m.

TUE 11/1/05 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

TUE 11/08/05 ELECTION DAY

WED 11/09/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

FRI 11/11/05 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

MON 11/14/05 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

THU&FRI 11/24&11/25 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

MON 11/28/05 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 12/05/05 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 12/06/05 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

WED 12/14/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

Transcribed by Jane L. Schimpf, November 17, 2005 Signature on file

Date Approved: December 14, 2005 Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date