ROLL CALL
Present: Members John Avdoulos, Brian Burke, Victor Cassis, Andrew Gutman, Michael Lynch, Michael Meyer, Mark Pehrson
Absent: Members David Lipski, (excused), Wayne Wrobel (excused)
Also Present: Barbara McBeth, Director of Planning; Tim Schmitt, Planner; Jason Myers, Planner, David Beschke, Landscape Architect; Ben Croy, Engineer; Larry DeBrincat, Woodland and Landscape Consultant; Paul Taylor, Façade Consultant; David Gillam, City Attorney

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Member Burke led the meeting in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Member Avdoulos asked that "Election of Officers" and "Committee Appointments" be added to the Agenda.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

No one from the audience wished to speak.

There was no Correspondence to share.

There were no Committee Reports.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth welcomed Mark Pehrson and Mike Lynch back onto the Planning Commission. The Mayor recently appointed them to another three-year term. Brian Burke was also named to the Planning Commission for the first time this year.

Ms. McBeth said that the two Fountain Walk plans (the drive and the demolition) were approved by City Council. Text Amendments that were approved include the Town Center (second reading), Animal Boarding Facilities (second reading), and Recreational Equipment Storage (second reading). Ms. McBeth said that certain standards of the OST have been referred back to the Planning Commission for a Public Hearing from the Ordinance Review Committee.

There was no Consent Agenda.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Marlin Wroubel for revised Woodland Permit approval. The subject property is located in Section 13, east of Meadowbrook Road, south of Twelve Mile and north of I-96, in the OST, Planned Office Service Technology District. The subject property is approximately 4.57 acres and the Applicant is proposing a 34,100 square foot one-story speculative office for service and technology use.

Planner Jason Myers said that during the Final Site Plan review of this project, it was discovered that another twelve trees were going to be impacted on this site. They are along the edge of the woodland. Originally there was a light cover woodland over much of this site, and some medium cover woodland behind it. Some of the light cover woodland was impacted by the roads and utilities. Before, it was thought that the woodland and the conservation easement had the same boundary; it was then discovered that they do not have the same boundary. The trees within the conservation easement will not be impacted.

Chair Cassis asked how the City didn’t know this information at the time of Preliminary Site Plan review. Mr. Myers said that he did not have the necessary information at the time of Preliminary Site Plan review, and that it would not necessarily be required at that time. To some extent the City went on the Applicant’s word that no trees would be impacted. Woodland Consultant Larry DeBrincat can verify that he was concerned at the time of Preliminary Site Plan review that the trees might be impacted. He took their word on good faith. Chair Cassis asked whether the City is sure that the information is now correct. Mr. Myers responded that he believed that it was.

This park has two existing buildings, and M-5, I-96 and Meadowbrook Road border the property. Trane Corporation is to the north.

Ashley Heidelberg with Burton Katzman addressed the Planning Commission. Their address is 30100 Telegraph Road, Suite 366, Bingham Farms, 48025. She introduced their engineer from Giffels Webster, and landscape architect Mark Hanson, 2871 Bond St., Rochester Hills.

Mr. Hanson said that Mr. DeBrincat asked them to identify the trees on site. When they were in the process of doing so, they added some more trees to the list. They tied the trees into their survey and the conservation easement. That is when they determined that the two boundaries were not the same. They brought this information forward to the City. They, too, had assumed that the tree protection fence was on the conservation easement boundary, although it wasn’t.

Chair Cassis said the City appreciated the Applicant bringing this information to light. No one from the audience wished to speak and no correspondence was received so Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing.

Member Avdoulos noted that the overage of parking lot trees have been proposed to be planted within the conservation easement. Mr. DeBrincat explained that six trees proposed for the easement area aren’t replacement trees, which would be welcome in the easement. He did not feel that parking lot trees were appropriate or acceptable for the easement area. It doesn’t make sense to plant parking lot trees there because they will be lost. There are some trees that have died in the area. Planting replacement trees in the easement is appropriate.

Member Avdoulos asked if the Applicant can accommodate the six trees. Mr. Hanson said they have altered their plan to do so.

Member Avdoulos also appreciated the Applicant bringing this information forward.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Consideration of the request of Staybridge Novi, LLC, for Preliminary Site Plan, Section 9 Waiver, and Stormwater Management Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 17, south of Grand River Avenue and west of Beck Road in the OSC, Office Service Commercial District. The subject property is 3.74 acres and the Applicant is proposing the construction of a 108 room extended stay hotel.

Planner Tim Schmitt described the project. The property is master planned for Office, as are all of the properties around it. It is zoned OSC, as is the entire campus. Each Providence project will require a property split, none of which have been submitted to the City. This project abuts the Providence ring road. Grand River is to the north; Beck Road is to the east. The ITC corridor is to the west and is zoned I-1. There is some I-2 land on Grand River as well. Further to the north is property master planned for Local Commercial and zoned B-2. To the west, the Wizinsky property (Songbird Ridge) is master planned for Single Family Residential. There are no wetlands or woodlands on this site.

The Applicant is proposing a 108-unit extended stay hotel. There is a single access point onto Providence Parkway proposed, a road which will also function for future development to the north. There will be an intersection designed for this use in the future. Parking will be on each side of the building. There is a poolhouse to be located on the south side in the courtyard area.

Most reviews recommend approval with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

The Applicant requests a Section 9 Façade Waiver for the use of cultured stone – similar to though not the same as the other products used on the campus. Pictures of other Staybridge hotels were provided for the Planning Commission to review.

The Landscape Review indicated that there are items that need to be addressed. The parking lot must be redesigned such that more than 15 spaces are not in a row. The islands need to be further delineated. The Applicant believes he can meet all of the Ordinance requirements. No waivers are requested; however, the motion should state that the Applicant should redesign his plan to meet the requirements.

A Planning Commission Finding and a Planning Commission Waiver are necessary for the front yard parking design. The plan meets the items one through four of this section of the Ordinance. The Planning Commission Finding should also state that the lighting is compatible with the neighboring uses as well. The proposed design is acceptable to the Planning Department, as it is consistent with the other projects and the Applicant has not proposed all of the parking to be in the front yard.

The Planning Commission is also asked to waive the parking lot setback requirements, with the provision that the additional setback is provided elsewhere on the site, with no net loss. This same issue was approved on the medical office building and the orthopaedic center. In this case the site has the common drive along the north side of the property, which causes a 10,000 square foot deficiency. Normally twenty feet of setback is required. The Planning Department finds that allowing the setback area to be placed elsewhere is conducive to getting shared access between properties. The Planning Department has a planimeter that can accurately measure the relocated setback land to ensure that the plan meets this footnote requirement. In this case, the Applicant has offered some modifications to this plan that will be formally submitted on the Final Site Plan. An additional ten feet will be added to the site, coming from the greensward area. The Applicant is flattening out a tangent line, which gives them a bit more area. Given the numbers provided, Mr. Schmitt was comfortable with the plan meeting the setback provisions. Mr. Schmitt said that the Planning Department recommends that an easement be placed over these areas such that the land remains open setback area.

Rob Casselou, president of Providence Park Hospital, addressed the Planning Commission. He felt this submittal was consistent with the vision they originally proposed for the campus. He was delighted that they have come this far in their planning process. This product is ideal for this campus – an extended stay hotel is very accommodating for patients’ families.

Mr. Casselou said that they considered four aspects before choosing this Staybridge model for their campus. They considered the quality of the product. They found the look and quality to be acceptable. They looked at the probability of success, and whether a hotel would do well on this site. This hotel is valuable to the hospital as well as the City. If there was a problem in the future, what could be the probable use of this facility? This building lends itself to a multitude of options, though Mr. Casselou emphasized they were not looking for failure, just considering the "what ifs." The façade of the building was considered. The feel of the site was considered. Providence’s master architect, NBBJ, has oversight of the entire campus. The materials throughout the property are compatible and consistent. NBBJ felt this product met the look and feel of the Providence campus.

Member Lynch asked what the intent of the existing Façade Ordinance was. Why does the Planning Commission continually have to grant the Section 9 Façade Waiver on the cultured stone? Mr. Schmitt replied that Section 2520 does not address cast stone products. This product falls under this umbrella. Initially, this product’s quality was not up to the City’s standards. Over the years, technology has improved, such that the color is baked through the entire product. The look is now consistent. After the Planning Department has reviewed this product time and time again, and the Planning Commission approved its use in almost all instances, the Planning Department is now in the process of updating Section 2520 to include the use of a certain amount of cast stone and stone product in general. The allowed percentage has not been determined yet. The reason for the waiver now is that the Ordinance has not been updated. Generally, the Façade Consultant has been bringing it up because the Planning Commission should be aware of it, and the quality of the product should be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission.

Member Lynch asked who was leading the effort to update the Ordinance – determining the specifications, etc. Director of Planning Barbara McBeth responded that there are a number of text amendments that are in line for either Planning Commission review or Implementation Committee review. The Façade Ordinance is one of them. New technologies and new materials must be considered. She has been working with Mr. Schmitt on this list of text amendments.

Member Lynch confirmed that the color is through-and-through – if the material is chipped the color will not vary. Mr. Schmitt responded that this will be confirmed on the Final Site Plan submittal. Member Lynch said that the Planning Commission is going to approve this material’s use, with the understanding that the material is colored throughout. Member Lynch thought this was a good product, he just didn’t want a misunderstanding. This has to be a high-quality cultured stone product. Mr. Schmitt said that if it turns out that this material cannot perform, then the Planning Department will bring the item back to the Planning Commission to review.

Member Pehrson appreciated the Applicant’s work and their response letter. He supported the Section 9 Waiver. He thought the façade matched what is elsewhere on the campus. The front yard parking is acceptable and is compatible with the other buildings. He confirmed that Mr. Schmitt was comfortable with the setback issue – that there was no net loss of area. He confirmed with Mr. David Beschke, Landscape Architect, that the Applicant’s response through Russell Design addressed his concerns. Their June 30, 2006 letter states they will address all outstanding issues. They have already corrected the 15-spaces-in-a-row issue. Mr. Beschke has already written a second review that recommends approval.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

Member Avdoulos thought the project worked with the northerly access road. This will keep the ring road free of clutter. He was concerned about the parking lot, but it does run in line with the medical office building and orthopaedic center parking lots. Member Avdoulos wanted to ensure that the greensward stays as natural as possible. He thought the front yard parking was fine. The landscaping issues have been or will be resolved.

Member Avdoulos noted that new materials will always be introduced – the Section 9 Waivers will probably always be necessary to address this. It is helpful that the existing Ordinance brings these new materials to light, and the Planning Commission gets a chance to review them for quality. He asked if the Applicant was proposing a cement fiber siding board or a wood board. Derrick Frank, the architect, responded that it was a cement board. Member Avdoulos said it is also a new product – gaining in popularity in the last five years. It is a stable material. He would rather see this product than EIFS.

Member Avdoulos said that cultured stone is a manmade material, as is brick. It is laid up the same way. It has to be weeped and flashed. This campus is coming together. The buildings are unique but complement each other. He was glad that NBBJ was part of the process, to ensure that the campus does come together. He supported the motion.

Member Meyer said that he really liked Mr. Casselou’s comments and the addition of this property to the campus.

Chair Cassis thought this was a good project that fit into the area. It serves a purpose. He felt that the quality was excellent. He welcomed Staybridge to the community.

City Attorney David Gillam suggested that a few items be added to the motion on the table. He suggested that Stipulation 1 read: A Planning Commission Waiver for lack of parking lot setback, with no net loss of setback area on the site, to be confirmed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal by City Planners, with the Applicant providing a non-development easement also at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. Secondly, he suggested that Stipulation 2 read: A Planning Commission Section 9 Façade Waiver to allow use of cultured stone, with submission of the cultured stone’s manufacturing details with the Final Site Plan.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

There were no Consent Agenda Removals.

Planner Tim Schmitt offered the Planning Commission information regarding development agreements and consent judgments that affect various parcels in the City. He noted that the list he provided to the Planning Commission was not inclusive.

City Attorney David Gillam said a consent judgment is the result of a dispute that turns into a lawsuit. The judgment is the written settlement of the parties. It becomes part of the record. The judge is not going to be concerned with the specifics of the consent judgment. He looks to the attorneys to ensure that sufficient detail has been written into the judgment.

Member Lynch asked how all of these consent judgments could happen. Was it something that prior Planning Commissions did? City Council? Was there a violation of law?

Mr. Gillam responded that these judgments could be the result of any number of things. It could be a situation where the Planning Commission or City Council did not follow or comply with the Ordinance. The Applicant may not have been in compliance. It could be that the Ordinance is unclear – and there are arguments for both sides. Lawsuits regarding land use are settled for a variety of reasons. Unless the issue is very clear cut, it makes more sense for the parties involved to come to an agreement. It will save everyone time and money. It is not always a situation where someone has done something wrong. There could be a gap in the Ordinance – something was never anticipated so there isn’t sufficient guidance for the matter. It becomes incumbent upon the parties through the litigation process to reach some kind of settlement.

Member Lynch said he felt his role was to ensure that a development was an appropriate use of the land. The landowner wants the maximum profit from the land, but his proposal may not be appropriate for the area. He didn’t want the City to shoot itself in the foot. He said he wanted to make sure that he didn’t have to approve a use he disagreed with, e.g., a highrise building with a million units in a small area. He doesn’t want to see a situation like this turn into a lawsuit against the City. That is why he is concerned. He hopes that the City Attorney advises the Planning Commission as plans come forward.

Mr. Gillam said the Staff does an excellent job in their review letters in laying forth what the standards are. He said that they are still working on the date for the next legal training for the Planning Commission. There are certain standards in the Ordinance that must be met by the Applicant. Approval must be granted when the standards are met. There is no discretion. There are areas where the Planning Commission or City Council are allowed to exercise judgment. An Applicant is entitled to a reasonable use of his property. They are not entitled to maximize the use of the property. It may be a situation where the City determines that maximizing the use of the property is in the City’s best interest, within the scope of the Zoning Ordinance. Then it becomes a win-win for everybody. This is not the norm. Then it is up the Planning Commission or City Council to use some discretion. As long as decisions are reasonable, it is beneficial to make findings that support the position taken. Generally then, the City will be in good shape.

Mr. Schmitt said that not all consent judgments are related to land use. Sometimes land use becomes the carrot to get the settlement. Lawsuits can arise from SADs, or things of that nature, where there is a contract and there is a dispute over the contract.

Chair Cassis asked whether the City gets into trouble when consistency is not maintained. Mr. Gillam said that is one big cause of the problem. Mr. Gillam said if there is a situation where the Planning Commission is wrong, the City Attorney’s office would let them know – perhaps not at the table as it may not be in the City’s best interest to waive the red flag right then. They will help make arrangements to get the issue back on the table.

Mr. Schmitt said that development agreements are also a mechanism with which properties are developed with deviations to the Zoning Ordinance. Now the development agreement process is codified [Planned Rezoning Overlay].

Mr. Schmitt cited the agreements made with the big landowners in Sections 1 and 2 of the City. These resulted in the preservation of an incredible piece of natural beauty. The wetlands and natural reserve are breathtaking. These four properties are Deer Ridge (Lenox Park), Fox Run, The Maples (PUD, similar to a development agreement) and Haverhill Farms.

Legacy Parc was a development agreement that gave the developer additional density for the construction of a pathway. This property and Boardwalk (a northerly property that did not develop) are examples of two large properties that had uncertain timing, which can cause a problem. The agreements run with the land and require the City’s approval to change them. In the future, these agreements may have to be modified. It is good that the City has a process in place now that can be used for these agreements.

There are many consent judgments. There are certain developers who legislate for their land use. Other judgments relate to SAD issues, e.g., Society Hill. This Multiple Family Residential community was just given a one-year site plan extension and it will likely begin to develop within the year. The plan preserves some nice land.

Paragon was a twenty-year lawsuit. The owner wanted to put a mobile home park on the site. The City has one of the largest populations of mobile homes in the Midwest and therefore they denied the Paragon request because it felt Novi already housed its fair share. The Supreme Court adopted Jerry Fisher’s amicus brief as the appeal process. Because of this landmark case, if a rezoning is denied by a City Council, the Applicant must go to the Zoning Board of Appeals before taking his case through the court system. This consent judgment now allows Single Family Residential [this is the Knightsbridge Gate community] on the Paragon site.

Novi Promenade is a consent judgment as a result of a denied rezoning. The City had always planned for commercial on this site, but it didn’t feel that the timing was right. The infrastructure was not in place to serve that property. The Applicant made improvements to Wixom Road as a result of the judgment. Target and Sam’s Club are now open; a third big box user can also fit on this site.

Gateway Village is a consent judgment but as the development continued, this Applicant began using elements of the Gateway East zoning district because he liked the Ordinance.

Ten Mile and Beck corners have been through lawsuits. The northwest corner was defended against the use of Multiple Family Residential. It is zoned and master planned for R-1. The northeast corner is the Briarwood Plaza.

Sandstone is a very large consent judgment. It involves a variety of different properties. The land use section of the judgment is fifty pages long. The entire judgment is over 3.5 inches thick. The land use issues include the transfer of 75 acres [now Liberty Park]. This land could have been used for very high density residential and some commercial. The actual development of this site is better than what the City could have hoped to have on this site. Pulte Homes wanted to do Single Family Residential, and the City jumped at this opportunity, which meant amending the consent judgment. The density on this site is 4.5 units per acre, which is about one-third of what the consent judgment allowed. There is no commercial proposed. This development is much better than what could have been. The other part of the Sandstone Consent Judgment is the Vistas PUD. There is a commercial aspect to the Vistas that never happened. They have the ability to put certain uses there, and there are prohibited uses as well. The Rite-Aid is a specifically approved use. This consent judgment is unique in that it is so very detailed.

Mr. Schmitt said that these judgments are being presented to the Planning Commission because otherwise, the Planning Commission may not know the parameters of these developments. Oftentimes the Planning Commission is just not involved per the judgment. There is no Planning Commission review, no Public Hearing, etc. City Council is the approving authority. The residents were very interested in the Rite-Aid development and they wondered why there was no information on its planning. The City reviews these plans against the terms of the consent judgment.

Mr. Schmitt said that the list provided to the Planning Commission included the most noteworthy judgments and agreements. He encouraged the Planning Commission to contact the Planning Department if they have any questions about land uses in the City.

City Attorney David Gillam added that as attorneys, they do the best job they can in crafting the judgments and agreements to try to deal with potential issues and possibilities. They now add language to help with the interpretation when the Ordinance does or does not apply. They use a statement that says unless the document specifically states an Ordinance provision does not apply, then the City Ordinance does in fact apply. To the extent possible, this will minimize issues in the future. It’s best to rely on the Ordinance as much as possible.

Clarification was made that sometimes the Planning Commission does review a consent judgment plan. This occurs when the Applicant makes a request that differs from the terms of the consent judgment, and therefore the Planning Commission has the right to review the request.

Member Avdoulos encouraged the new Planning Commission members to take the Citizen Planner course because this educational program teaches a lot about planning issues and consent judgments.

The Planning Commission will elect officers and appoint members to the Planning Commission Committees at the July 26, 2006 meeting.

There were no Supplemental Issues.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Moved by Member Avdoulos,

The meeting adjourned at or about 8:49 p.m.

MON 07/24/06 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 07/26/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

TUE 08/01/06 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

WED 08/09/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 08/14/06 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 08/23/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 08/28/06 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 09/04/06 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

MON 09/11/06 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 09/12/06 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

WED 09/13/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 09/25/06 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 09/27/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

Transcribed by Jane L. Schimpf, September 13, 2006 Signature on File

Date Approved: September 27, 2006 Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date