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

Present: Members John Avdoulos, Brian Burke, Victor Cassis, Andrew Gutman, David Lipski, Michael Lynch, Michael Meyer, Mark Pehrson, Wayne Wrobel

Absent: Brian Burke (excused)

Also Present: Barbara McBeth, Director of Planning; Tim Schmitt, Planner; Jason Myers, Planner; David Beschke, Landscape Architect; Ben Croy, Engineer; Doris Hill, Woodland and Landscape Consultant; David Gillam, City Attorney

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

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Moved by Member Wrobel, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Chair Cassis accepted the position of Chair.

Moved by Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Lynch:

Member Avdoulos accepted the position of Vice-Chair.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Meyer:

Member Pehrson accepted the position of Secretary.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

There was no Correspondence to share.

There were no Committee Reports.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth reported that at the last City Council meeting the Novi Town Center outlots were approved. A water feature was added to the Grand River/Novi Road corner. City Council is forwarding a Sign Ordinance text amendment to the Planning Commission for the purpose of holding a Public Hearing. The first reading of the Stacking Space text amendment was approved by City Council.

There was no Consent Agenda.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Novi Hospitality, LLC for revised Preliminary Site Plan, Woodland Permit, Wetland Permit, and Stormwater Management Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 13, south of Twelve Mile between Haggerty Road and the M-5 connector, in the B-2, Community Business District. The subject property is 2.32 acres and the Applicant proposes to build a 92 room limited service hotel.

Planner Jason Myers addressed the Planning Commission. The property is adjacent to Ruby Tuesday and a city-owned parcel of land. The property is near Great Lakes Corporate Campus and Columbus Office as well. The land between M-5 and Haggerty is master planned for Office. There is a small number of parcels master planned for Community Commercial, including this property. The zoning in the area is mostly OST, except the subject parcel and the two adjacent parcels which are zoned B-3.

There is a large wetland system in the area and on this site. There are medium woodlands in the area and also on this site. The property is considered a low priority natural feature area in the County’s inventory.

The Applicant’s plan includes the 92 room hotel and limited other services. There is an entrance from Twelve Mile and a secondary access to the Ruby Tuesday parking lot. There is parking proposed on three sides of the building.

The reviews recommend approval with the exception of the Landscape Review. An upgraded plan has been designed and now only three waivers are necessary, all of which the Planning Department supports. The first request is for a waiver of the Twelve Mile street trees; The RCOC will not approve trees in this right-of-way. There is a request for a foundation landscape waiver for the area adjacent to the wetland buffer. This is on the western edge. Typically a four-foot landscape section is required. Since this area is not visible, the Planning Department supports the request, as long as the landscape materials are located elsewhere on the site, as agreed to by the Applicant.

There is a also a request for a Same Side Driveway Spacing Waiver. A 230-foot distance is required and the Applicant proposed 135 feet originally. However, with changes requested by the RCOC, the distance to be proposed is more likely 125 feet. The Waiver should be granted for the shortcoming described on the RCOC plan.

Mr. Myers asked that the Planning Commission include in any approving motion the statement that the items in the Applicant response letter relating to landscaping on the site be incorporated into the Final Site Plan design.

Mr. Myers described Twelve Mile, showing where the Michigan left lane is located. The drives were originally designed to be opposite the turn lane; RCOC requested that the drive be moved. Civil Engineer Ben Croy added that the most recent review submitted by the RCOC asked that the drive be moved another ten feet to the east. Again, this is the County’s request.

Hathem Hammawa of H&H and Manhal Shammami, owner, introduced themselves. Mr. Hammawa explained that the driveway spacing is a safety issue. Initially, they wanted to line the drive up with turn area. This would have been nice because it would have lined up with their canopy area. They understand they have to follow the RCOC guidelines.

No one from the audience wished to speak and no correspondence was received so Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing.

Member Pehrson thanked the Applicant for his response letter. He asked about the March 21, 2006 on-site wetland meeting. Mr. Myers responded that he thought the issue was the Wetland Consultant was asking the Applicant clean the excessive debris out of the wetland during the construction phase. Mr. Hammawa said he did not know what the extent of the debris was, but if it was on his property, or within twenty to fifty feet of his property, he said he would clean it up. He then reiterated that he did not know what the volume of debris was.

Member Pehrson asked whether the landscaping square footage was calculated to the satisfaction of the landscape architect, David Beschke. Mr. Beschke responded that the Applicant has agreed to add more landscaping, and upon further review it was determined that more square footage was provided than originally thought. This is true of the foundation planting. There is also an area in the ell-shape of the building that wasn’t landscaped, though the Applicant has agreed to provide landscaping in that area as well. This area ranges from ten to sixteen feet wide. The area requirement is met, and this addition supplements the lack of foundation planting elsewhere on site (near the wetland). The waiver is still required because the planting is not going in the required area.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Lipski:

Member Avdoulos asked about the canopy and whether there was a fourteen-foot clear height. He assumed that the Fire Marshal looked at that. Mr. Myers did not remember what the height was, but he was sure he would have been alerted by a low-hanging canopy.

Member Avdoulos cautioned the Applicant to be careful when removing the debris from the wetlands. He asked that bulldozers not be driven into the wetland. He suggested that the Applicant confer with City prior to cleaning this site.

Member Avdoulos was glad to see the secondary access to Ruby Tuesday. This is nice to have facilities work off of one another. Member Avdoulos thought the hotel would look nice next to Ruby Tuesday. He supported the motion.

Chair Cassis confirmed that the façade met the intent of the Ordinance. Mr. Myers said that the light color on the rendering is most likely brick. Mr. Hammawa said the original material was EIFS, but now it will be brick. They submitted samples of the color. Chair Cassis thought it looked very nice.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Grand Sakwa Properties for Knightsbridge Gate Poolhouse for Preliminary Site Plan, Stormwater Management Plan, and Woodland Permit approval. The subject property is located in Section 18, south of Twelve Mile, east of Napier Road, in the RA, Residential Acreage, and OS-2, Planned Office Service, Districts. The subject property is 1.61 acres and the applicant is proposing to construct a pool and poolhouse, adjacent to the Knightsbridge Gate subdivision.

Planner Tim Schmitt described the property. To the north is the city of Wixom - a vacant industrial park, zoned IRO (Industrial Research Office) and an apartment community, zoned RC-1 (Multiple Family Residential). To the south and west is Knightsbridge Gate, zoned and R-A and OS-2 and master planned for Single Family Residential. The property is split zoned because the land was not rezoned as part of the Consent Judgment. The issue was brought up but did not become part of the negotiations. To the east is vacant land, zoned R-A, R-1 and I-1, and currently designated on the Master Plan as a Special Planning Project Area.

There are regulated woodlands on the property. There are no regulated wetlands.

The poolhouse is proposed in the south center of the site. Parking will be available on a small cul-de-sac for those homeowners who may drive rather than walk to the pool. The pool is intended for the use of this subdivision only.

The Planning Commission should consider a number of issues relating to this site plan. The plan proposes 35 parking spaces, though the Ordinance recommends parking spaces for one-half of the number of homes, or 174 spaces. In this case, the Planning Department believes this request is excessive. This dense subdivision is more likely to yield walkers rather than drivers. This finding can be made by the Planning Commission, that the users of the facility will originate in the immediate vicinity and the parking as proposed is appropriate.

The Landscape Review indicates that two waivers must be granted. A Landscape Foundation Waiver is required for the back side of the building. The Applicant proposes a pool deck all the way up to the facilities. The Planning Department supports this request given the use on the site. A Parking Lot Landscape Waiver is required. Only two islands meet the requirements. The Applicant has made a substantial attempt to meet the requirements. The Planning Department supports the Applicant’s request. Landscape Consultant Doris Hill was available to field questions on her review. The Applicant has indicated that they will meet all other requirements on their Final Site Plan submittal.

The Traffic Review and Engineering Review noted minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

The Façade Review indicated the need for a Section 9 Waiver. The building is designed to fit the motif of a Single Family Residential development. There is excess siding and roof, but the Planning Department supports the request because the design maintains the harmony of the neighborhood.

The site has been cleared of the woodlands. The Planning Department learned that the site was cleared earlier this year without the benefit of a permit. The Applicant confessed to doing so and said it was a misunderstanding. 200 inches of replacement trees are required, and the Applicant has heavily replanted the site and will do what he can to fit all credits back on site. There are a few areas that the Applicant will redesign with Ms. Hill to improve its landscaping. The Planning Department is satisfied with the resolution of this matter. An approving woodland permit motion should include a stipulation regarding the 200 inches of credit.

Rick Hofsess of Zeimet Wozniak, an engineering firm, represented the Applicant. Ron Hill of Grand Sakwa was also in attendance. They offered to answer any questions.

Member Wrobel read the correspondence into the record:

David Ganz, 27380 Victoria Road: Approved and supported the request. The plan is well-conceived and heavily landscaped.

No one from the audience wished to speak so Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing.

Member Avdoulos asked Ms. Hill whether she had any issues with the landscape plan. Ms. Hill said they reviewed a couple of different layouts and she felt the Applicant did a good job with this plan. With the additional woodland mitigation, this will be a really nice, green area, despite not having the appropriate parking lot island areas or the lack of foundation plantings. This plan is appropriate.

Member Avdoulos asked whether their woodland mitigation plan remedies their woodland violation. Ms. Hill did not count the trees, but the Applicant states there are eighty replacement trees that satisfy the credits needed. The Applicant may wish to work with Ms. Hill to ensure adequate spacing and placement of the trees. They can review the diversity of species. She asked that the motion include language stating the undercanopy of these trees be left in a natural state and not mowed or sodded. The Applicant has stated they will allow a woodland area to develop around these trees.

Ms. Hill noted that there is a nice seed bank of trout lily and May Apples and Solomon’s Seal. This is a high-quality understory. She would like to see this regenerate.

Member Avdoulos asked about adding more shrubs to the berm. Ms. Hill said the plan before them still seemed to be deficient in terms of screening. This is true particularly for the Twelve Mile side and along the east. On the south there are many evergreens. The may not be development to the east, but someday that may change. Landscaping this berm should not become the onus of that property owner. Member Avdoulos encouraged the Applicant to continue to work with the Staff and Consultants.

Member Avdoulos thought the biggest problem with this project was the woodland violation but he felt comfortable that the Applicant was working with the City.

Member Avdoulos thought the Parking Space Waiver was an appropriate request.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Member Lynch asked whether the City was being consistent in what they were requiring for this poolhouse as opposed to other poolhouses in the area. Mr. Schmitt responded that in the case of Island Lake, a different Landscape Ordinance was in place. Realistically, Island Lake would even meet today’s standards. When the Planning Department analyzed poolhouse parking for the Legacy Parc proposal, they found that 10% parking was a consistent number associated with subdivision poolhouse parking.

Member Lynch asked who will inspect this project. Mr. Schmitt responded that inspections are performed by Staff and Consultants at the request of the Applicant all throughout the construction process. Bond money is held to ensure that the site is developed according to plan. Changes to the approved plan because of unforeseen issues, e.g., a certain species are unavailable or there are practicality problems, are approved by the Planning Department. There is also a two-year guaranty time-frame.

Member Lynch was concerned that the trees would not be placed in the right places. Mr. Schmitt responded that this site is designed so tightly this will not be a problem. Ms. Hill added that they perform many of the inspections, and they truly rely on the plans for the placement of trees. They will not give credit for misplaced plantings unless there is a practicality issue.

Member Lynch supported the motion.

Member Wrobel liked the site plan. He said that the Applicant may wish to consider putting a lighting plan in place for security and safety reasons. Mr. Hofsess said this suggestion would be taken under advisement.

Member Meyer asked the City Attorney whether any decisions made on this plan impacts the Consent Judgment. Mr. David Gillam responded that the Consent Judgment applies to the bulk of the site, but not this parcel or this use. The Judgment was silent with regard to the construction of a poolhouse. Therefore, the poolhouse falls under the terms of the Ordinance.

Member Meyer asked about the turnaround area and whether the Fire Marshal approved of the design. Mr. Schmitt responded that the Applicant can make a slight adjustment to avoid requesting a one-foot variance. The length of the parking is substantial enough that the Fire Marshal does require the hammerhead design.

Member Meyer was pleased with the cooperation between the City and this Applicant throughout the site plan review. He thought the 35 parking spaces were sufficient.

Chair Cassis discussed the layout of the subdivision with Mr. Schmitt. 353 homes are allowed but slightly less actually fit on site. The site is 76 acres. This site adds another 1.5 acres. Chair Cassis recalled a previous site plan on which some of the homes were a great distance away from the poolhouse. He wanted to ensure that 35 parking spaces were enough for this site. Mr. Schmitt reiterated that the Planning Department has approved of 10% parking – 35 is 10% of 353. In compact developments, 10% is adequate. If this was a traditional membership pool, 50% parking would be required. In terms of the site layout, the northern half is very gridded and those people are fairly close to the pool. They will be more likely to walk. The lots are only 55 feet wide. The southern half of the site is more curvilinear due to the wetland. The southwest homeowners are more likely to drive to the pool.

Mr. Schmitt said that the last poolhouse plan relied more on on-street parking rather than a parking lot. That was a different issue. That site was also over 300 acres. Their furthest homeowner will live nearly one mile away from that pool. The parking issue was reviewed for both Island Lake and Legacy Parc. Allowing 35 spaces was not an arbitrary decision. He supported this plan more so than the other two. He noted that Island Lake encompasses 907 acres and their pool house has about 80-90 parking spaces. Legacy Parc had twenty lot spaces and then relied on street parking. This site actually meets the intent of the finding. This is a compact development. It is not oddly shaped.

The homeowners’ association will likely contract a private company who will park in the parking lot to service the pool. If their equipment is very large, they could park on the hammerhead if necessary.

Member Wrobel asked whether parking would be restricted on the streets. Mr. Schmitt replied that the Consent Judgment or the subdivision’s master deed restricts parking to one side of the road. The road widths and sidewalk widths were modified by the Consent Judgment, but the road is wide enough for one side of parking and two lanes of travel.

Member Lynch said that Island Lake’s parking is inadequate. However, there are more activities in that area than just the poolhouse. He wanted the Planning Department to be aware of this. He said he guessed this subdivision would also have an occasional problem. Because of the size of this site, he was willing to accept the 35 parking space standard. Mr. Schmitt conceded that Island Lake will probably always have a parking problem because of the sheer magnitude of the site. Homeowners are going to drive their pool.

Member Lynch was pleased that this development was adding a pool.

Member Lipski said that if the Consent Judgment needs to be modified to address potential safety issues relating to the addition of this poolhouse site, then he would encourage that avenue be taken. If the Consent Judgment can address future parking issues, for example, then it would be beneficial to the City.

Chair Cassis supported the site plan request. This is a great addition to the subdivision. He called for the vote.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Pehrson:

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Amson Dembs for a recommendation to City Council for rezoning of property in Section 9, east of West Park Drive and North of Twelve Mile, From 1-2, General Industrial, to OST, Planned Office Service Technology District. The subject property is 16.1 acres.

Planner Jason Myers described the property as part of the greater Novi Corporate Campus. Other projects in the area include Keystone Medical, Great Oaks Landscaping and Steelcrete. There is a City-owned wooded wetland in the area, on the other side of the railroad track. The triangle bound by West Park, Twelve Mile and the railroad track is master planned for Light Industrial. The land south of Twelve Mile is master planned for Office. There is a portion of land to the west that is master planned for Heavy Industrial. There is some Light Industrial land on either side of it. The park property is designated on the Master Plan as a [Public] Park.

The subject property and most of the property surrounding it are zoned Heavy Industrial. There is a strip of land north of Twelve Mile that is zoned I-1. The parkland is zoned R-1. Most of the land across Twelve Mile is currently zoned R-A.

There are a lot of wetlands on the edge of the subject property and the City property. The roads and utilities plan for this corporate park has already been approved. Some northerly wetland mitigation was performed as part of that plan. The stormwater facilities for the development is to the north and part of the subject property.

The Woodland Map shows that there is a medium cover woodland across the northern boundary of the site, and some pieces throughout the site. There are heavier as well as lighter woodlands across the railroad track.

The Habitat Plan shows there is a core reserve area overlapping into the northern boundary of the subject property. It continues toward Walled Lake.

The Applicant proposes to rezone approximately 16 acres of the 50-acre campus. The land is at the northeast corner of West Park Drive and Dylan Drive. This is the cul-de-sac that will serve Novi Corporate Campus. The chart from the packet compared the uses of the I-2 and the OST Districts. I-2 allows heavy industrial usages, outdoor storage and concrete plants. The OST allows office and research, hotels, and less impacting uses. There is a potential for more vehicle traffic with the OST. The dimensional requirements for the lots are different. The front yard parking requirement is allowed in the Industrial Districts provided it is behind the building setback line. Screening, appropriateness and percentage of area requirements are also different. The OST has a twenty-foot front yard parking setback and a fifty-foot required building setback. This allows for thirty feet minimum for parking.

The Planning Department does not recommend this rezoning because it is not consistent with the Master Plan for Land Use. The property being proposed for the rezoning is not adjacent to OST land, nor is the land planned for Office use. The property will probably only house two building sites. If this land is rezoned to OST, the remaining land in the campus should also be rezoned to OST for a more coherent district. This would total about 45 acres. To maintain the integrity of the Master Plan for Land Use, the Planning Commission may wish to consider an amendment to the Master Plan, studying the appropriateness of office use for the entire area, if the Planning Commission and City Council wish to rezone the property to OST. The Master Plan could then be revised as appropriate to designate office uses for a larger portion of the area. The Planning Commission and City Council could also consider rezoning the property to I-1, Light Industrial, subject to additional public notice.

Ryan Dembs was present, representing Amson Dembs. He cited their address as 26105 Lanny’s Road, Novi, MI. Mr. Dembs said that six or seven months ago a tenant approached him about an OST building. Mr. Dembs met with Director of Planning Barbara McBeth and City Manager Clay Pearson. Both encouraged him to move forward. First he attended a study session with the Master Plan and Zoning Committee. He laid out the site and brought the plans to that meeting. The Committee members suggested that Mr. Dembs increase the eight-acre site to be a 16-acre site. That would make a bit more sense. A traffic study showed that the two facilities could exist on Dylan Drive without causing undue traffic impacts. Mr. Dembs re-drew the site for the entire 16 acres, hoping then, to make the north side of Dylan Drive all OST. The plan came back before the Master Plan and Zoning Committee and everyone thought this made a lot more sense. It would be an acceptable plan. So, based on this positive feedback, he moved forward to this Public Hearing. He updated the tenant for this building, telling him that the feedback was positive enough already that they could move forward on this plan. The Japanese president flew overseas to meet with the City and he was very pleased.

Mr. Dembs showed a picture of the building that is anticipated for this site. He cited the I-2 zoning and said these types of uses do not belong in this corporate park. He understood too, that the land was master planned for Light Industrial, but he felt that land was a good potential site for OST. This was further proven by the interest of the tenant.

Chair Cassis asked what the actual difference to the plan is, based on the changeover to OST. Mr. Dembs said that there are two things that changed. With the proposal he is bringing forward, he acknowledges the high-end zoning of the OST. People know that zoning, and that is what they want. This tenant wants OST. The setbacks and the front yard parking is more conducive for an office setting. This cannot be accomplished with I-1 zoning. No front yard parking is available. Chair Cassis asked Mr. Dembs how he could defend his position, that these changes would be acceptable to the City.

Mr. Dembs responded that the front yard parking is what makes the facility functional. An office has several entrances, and corresponding parking is necessary. There is no warehouse component.

No one from the audience wished to speak and no correspondence was received so Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing.

Member Lynch said he did not see a problem with the request. The Applicant has met with the Planning Director, City Manager and the Master Plan and Zoning Committee. Everyone gave the Applicant encouragement. Why should the City not say this is the right thing to do? Member Lynch said that perhaps he is too new to the Planning Commission to understand the problem with that philosophy. He remembers another case that the Planning Commission all agreed was the right thing to do, but everyone was afraid to do it, because it was against some Ordinance or the Master Plan. If it doesn’t make sense to keep the property zoned Heavy Industrial, then why is the City considering that option?

Member Lipski said that Mr. Myers provided a nice review about Master Plan integrity and spot zoning. It was brilliant. Member Lipski joined the Planning Commission to help the City comply with Ordinances and Michigan Law. He wanted to apply the standards consistently across the board. There was a great approach to updating the Master Plan. The document is not set in stone. If the City is still serving the public’s best interest in applying these documents, then everything is okay. But, the Planning Commission has to be careful about chipping away at the Master Plan. Cases and decisions are sometimes challenged. Someone could come in after Amson Dembs and complain that the City didn’t follow the Master Plan in that case, so why is it being followed in his case? In this circumstance, Member Lipski thought it made sense that the City consider a less-environmentally aggressive use. The Habitat Plan concerned him; an office use may be less harmful to the area.

Member Lipski said this substantial Japanese corporation is also a benefit. But, he thought that a modification to the Master Plan must be done in great detail. He was not a fan of a lot of Industrial land. That is his own issue. It is ironic that the railroad track runs though this beautiful greenery. If this change provides for a beneficial use to the town this is a circumstance where the Planning Commission should carefully weigh the issues. The Planning Commission should find an appropriate way to allow this development without chipping away at the Master Plan. If the development can occur without long term negative impacts, this would be a good use for this part of town. He would like guidance on making this happen without negative impacts. Member Lipski said this entire development should be OST. It is more environmentally sensitive adjacent to the parkland. He was in favor of the request, as soon as an appropriate manner in which to proceed is determined.

Member Pehrson agreed with some of what has been said. His issue speaks to the initiative of the zoning change. Is this spot zoning? He thought it was the right move to add land to the rezoning request. In some of the Master Plan and Zoning Committee discussions, the PRO concept was brought up. Member Pehrson asked what the time frame was in making use of the PRO. Director of Planning Barbara McBeth said that the PRO application can be made at the same time as a rezoning request, or it can be made after the deliberations have been made. It follows along with the rezoning request. A concept plan is attached. The Planning Commission sends a recommendation to City Council. There could a be list of Ordinance violations provided by the Applicant, with a statement explaining the benefits associated with allowing these variations. A contract is formulated and approved by City Council. The Planning Commission then reviews the Preliminary Site Plan.

Member Pehrson asked again about the time frame. Ms. McBeth said it would take slightly longer because of the time frame associated with the preparation of the PRO Agreement.

Member Pehrson thought that the PRO exists so that developers and the City can reach mutual understanding of what’s best for everyone. One of the conditions is for the Applicant to define a true benefit. In this case, the Applicant could have taken the PRO path to avoid the spot zoning. The benefit would be that the use, the tenant, and the workforce economics are all slam dunk winners. He was disappointed that the Applicant did not seek this change with the PRO. He didn’t want to open up the door of altering the Master Plan.

Member Pehrson asked what exposure the City has in granting this request. Ms. McBeth responded that the Planning Commission does need to be careful of the Master Plan. It was just adopted recently. That was a main concern of the Planning Department. City Attorney David Gillam agreed. At the same time, there are certain circumstances or situations where a Master Plan change may be appropriate. That is a reflection of the fact that there could be changes in circumstance. As indicated in Mr. Myers’ letter, if rezoning is the direction the City wants to follow, then it is incumbent upon the City to review the Master Plan. Ideally, the Master Plan change would be in place before the rezoning takes effect. The comments made thus far, the issue of precedent is real and the Planning Commission must be concerned about it. They should be cautious about it.

Member Pehrson confirmed the Master Plan was adopted in 2004. It’s not as if there have been many of those changes over this period of time that would require the City to review the designation of this area. He understood that it is the intent of the City to move in that direction, Member Pehrson found it difficult to change this zoning based on the time frame and the avenue chosen. The PRO would have tailored better to this situation. He was not sure if he supported the rezoning request.

Mr. Dembs said that there actually is a big change that occurred after the adoption of the Master Plan: The SPUI Beck Road Interchange. That new road has driven this client to this location. That is one big reason that moved this request forward.

Member Lynch agreed. He also said that changes to Michigan in general must be weighed. The Wixom Ford plant is closing. Industrial work is going overseas. The trend is that industrial work is leaving the state. There are closed plants and industrial facilities. He thought it could have made sense to master plan this land for Industrial at one time, but taking today’s factors into consideration, he thought the changes were enough for the Planning Commission to consider this request.

Member Lynch did not consider that this change might set a precedent, which seems to be an issue for some. He said the changes to the work force must be considered. Changes in Michigan now encourage high tech users.

Member Meyer said three things are certain: Death, taxes and change. Change must be dealt with most often. Over his time as a Planning Commission member, he can recall hearing speeches – even from the Mayor – wherein the message is that things change. Does the City have to wait three years to make an amendment to the Master Plan? Mr. Gillam said that the City does not have to wait. The process is a bit more complicated, in the sense that notification must go out to more people now, with specific time frames for doing so and the associated response time.

Member Meyer said he joined the Planning Commission because he heard so many stories about how applicants have to jump many hurdles in order to develop here. It broke Member Meyer’s heart to hear that this Applicant has met with the key players, has addressed the situation and the changes, has noted the change to the Beck Road interchange and the addition of a hospital, has proposed a more environmentally-friendly zoning, and yet he heard resistance from his fellow Planning Commission members. With all due respect to those who worked on the Master Plan, Member Meyer felt that this rezoning request was justified.

Chair Cassis said that the Master Plan is a living, breathing document. It is a guide. There are times when the Planning Commission can consider evolving the plan. Mr. Gillam agreed. Chair Cassis said this is a unique situation, and therefore elements of change may be taken into consideration.

Member Gutman said this land is in the middle of an industrial district. The land to the north is the City’s land and is intended for what? Ms. McBeth said that the wooded wetland is intended to remain as is for the time being. Member Gutman said he was on the Master Plan and Zoning Committee and he was one of the people who recommended this Applicant add more land to his request. If the land to the north has no development potential, couldn’t it, too, be rezoned to Office so that this didn’t look like a spot zoning? He didn’t know if that was possible or made sense. It may not be applicable to Mr. Dembs’ request at this meeting. There is nothing planned that will happen on the City-owned property. Rezoning it would lend credibility to what the City is trying to accomplish.

Member Gutman continued that the south side of Twelve Mile is all Office. It is the direction that the City is trying to go. If the City wants to bring business to Novi, this is the area of growth.

Member Gutman said the Planning Commission should figure out how to craft the motion such that the appropriate message is sent to City Council. Mr. Gillam said that anything that the City does to rezone more land to OST, above and beyond the property on the table right now, is certainly going to lessen the argument that this is spot zoning. He clarified that he was not calling this a spot zoning, but the issue has been raised. Anything that could be done to add more OST land would reduce this argument. From a procedural standpoint, Mr. Gillam said that adding more land would require additional public notice but could considered at a later date.

Member Gutman asked the Applicant to explain further how he arrived at the parcel for which he is seeking a rezoning. Mr. Dembs responded that the Novi Corporate Campus is being built out with a consistent look and feel. There is a single story version and a multi-story version if the market rebounds to accommodate such a building. The park is planned to be high-end. There are a few users out there that are high end but need the Industrial zoning for manufacturing and assembly. The subject parcel was determined such that the park maintains its flexibility. The main focus is that Michigan is changing. Everyday Mr. Dembs is out there trying to bring business to Novi. He’s been doing it for eight years, and the market has changed not only here but also throughout Michigan. He has a high-quality customer for this site who can benefit from the Amson Dembs architectural way. They demand an OST zoning. They deserve an OST zoning for the type of use they are. To turn this use away at this time in this day and age is not something in which Mr. Dembs could see the value. He understood the goal of the Master Plan and he understood that it can’t be chipped away. Amson Dembs would not propose something for Novi that was not appropriate. He has developed Beck North and West Corporate Parks. Mr. Dembs felt this was a very good request based on the tenant and the way the rest of the park is anticipated to be developed. At the end of the day the City will have an extremely high-end corporate campus project.

Chair Cassis clarified the location of the road is a demarcation between the different zonings. Mr. Dembs had hoped that the park plan would have been shown for the Planning Commission. He explained that the zoning request is the north side of Dylan Drive. The south side of Dylan Drive will have Twelve Mile frontage and will maintain its zoning designation.

Chair Cassis asked whether the placement of the road gave more credence to the request. Mr. Gillam thought that one of the things the Planning Commission can look at to determine what are the appropriate boundaries of a zoning would indeed be roadways. Ms. McBeth agreed with that statement. Roadways are a good boundary. Different zonings have different setbacks and the road may help with providing appropriate distances between the different zoning, uses and setbacks.

Chair Cassis said this is the same conversation that prompted the Master Plan and Zoning Committee to ask this Applicant to add property to his request.

Mr. Myers showed the wetland map and explained where the Novi Corporate Campus lies. He said it would be incorrect to say that the rezoning encompasses all of the northerly land, because one could concede another area of the park is also north of the road. Parcel 10 is definitely north of the road. This request would be for two buildable parcels, a wetland mitigation area and the stormwater detention basin for the park. Mr. Dembs said there would not be another buildable lot north of the road because of the woodlands and the second building’s layout. He said that perhaps the land that Mr. Myers suggested was available could be used in the future to expand a parking lot or the size of the second building. Amson Dembs has committed to building both buildings. The first building is already under review, albeit a risk for his company.

Member Gutman confirmed the location of a building already constructed to Industrial standards elsewhere in the park. Member Gutman was supportive of this rezoning request. He would like to find a way to grant the request without compromising the Master Plan. He would also like the Planning Commission to consider reviewing the Master Plan designation for the land north of this site as well. He felt it would add to the integrity of what the Planning Commission is trying to accomplish.

Member Avdoulos said he was on the Master Plan and Zoning Committee when the Master Plan was updated. Each quadrant was reviewed. At the time, the thought was that an OST District would be created along the south side of Twelve Mile. That was done based on the future of the Beck Road interchange. Also, the City was anticipating the future hospital. It made sense that a nice corridor would be created along that stretch. The reason the north side remained Industrial was because that was the designation at the time; this was not a change to the Master Plan. In light of the quality found in industrial parks throughout the City, the Master Plan and Zoning Committee felt that the area could remain Industrial. Now the Applicant is looking for an option for a potential client. The Master Plan and Zoning Committee looked at the request twice, to make sure that they were allowing this plan to come forward to the Planning Commission with some assurances that the request was well-researched. The point is not to set a precedent. Member Avdoulos said he would be the last one who would vote against the Master Plan, because he understood the amount of work that went into the document. He tried to think of a way to settle this designation into the park so it is not out of place.

Member Avdoulos thought about the environmental comment made earlier at the table. He said that the Office designation is truly a more compatible zoning classification to be located next to an environmentally sensitive area. He thought the Applicant could take his property and expand the OST along the entire north part of his property, and there would be a good buffer between his site and the City property. Then, the road below separates the Office from the southerly Industrial. The plus side is the same developer owns this entire park and will control the look and quality of this site. The idea that the Applicant had was to benefit from the front yard parking in the OST District. There are other flexible items in this district too.

Member Avdoulos said that the PRO concept was suggested. For Mr. Dembs, the process seemed like it might be too long and a lot of waivers and variances may be required that could delay the process. Member Avdoulos read a previous set of minutes, wherein Mr. Spencer indicated that another avenue that the City could consider would be to allow OST setbacks on Industrial-zoned land in situations where the land is not abutting major arterial roads. An Ordinance update however, would take too long for Mr. Dembs. The OST is complementary to what is happening on the south side of Twelve Mile. The Master Plan and Zoning Committee felt that the boundary of West Park, Twelve Mile and the railroad track would assist the developer is designing the site with OST uses. The developer owns the southerly property, so the consistency of the campus would be maintained. That would then play into the medical office buildings on the south side of Twelve Mile. An Applicant did come in to discuss rezoning of another site in the area.

Member Avdoulos said that the one thing that the Planning Commission does not want to do is set the precedent of changing each parcel to suit a developer’s fancy. The PRO will help any developer seeking to develop outside of the Ordinance standards. Member Avdoulos said that if this building comes in with the anticipated Applicant, the Planning Commission would be amenable to working with him, as they do with other applicants. The City might have questions regarding the intent for the southerly properties. Member Avdoulos said that perhaps an OST overlay could befall the northerly area, since it matches the character of Twelve Mile, Beck Road and the environment.

Member Avdoulos said this discussion is very valuable and the City Council will understand the position of the Planning Commission. The integrity of the developer is a plus. He also has a personal stake in the property. They would not put something in place that would be a detriment to the campus.

Member Avdoulos said his only concern would be that one of the parcels gets developed as Office, but the next plan comes forward with a General Industrial user. Member Avdoulos would want the motion to include the benefit the rezoning provides to the area. This zoning is complementary to the existing zoning. The City Council should be encouraged to look at the City-owned property to the north for the purpose of rezoning it to OST, so that the OST designation in this area carries a bit more weight. In no way, during any of these meetings, did the Master Plan and Zoning Committee discredit Mr. Demb’s desire as an effort to piecemeal the park. The request benefits the developer, the City and the surrounding areas.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Lynch:

Member Lipski was impressed by the amount of effort that went into putting substance over form. He had one comment on the text of the motion. He wondered if the recommendation should include language to address the need to change the Master Plan. What land is available to the south that might be conducive for OST? With a larger OST zoning in place, the Twelve Mile OST would truly be complemented. Perhaps the Planning Commission can suggest to City Council that uniformed modification of this triangle would be more consistent or supplement further the intentions raised by Member Avdoulos in making suggestions for uniformity. He thought that the Planning Commission should include language stating that the City should review and consider making the entire triangle more consistently designated as Office on the Master Plan.

Member Pehrson said that this Applicant provides quality work. He was disappointed that the PRO was not used. Member Pehrson was pleased that the motion includes the potential for a greater tract of land to be rezoned, ultimately to an Office use. He did not want to set a precedent that would be used against the City in the future. If the City doesn’t go through and review this entire area for accuracy, then it is exposing itself to a possible future legal matter. He was pleased that the motion included the notion of reviewing more land for the rezoning.

Chair Cassis felt the motion went beyond just the Applicant’s request, which was encouraging to him. He suggested that the I-2 uses be reviewed for this request, because that zoning classification allows very intense uses. This request is a less intense use. It puts the City in a better, more environmentally-friendly place.

Chair Cassis said that the setbacks and parking issues make the difference. Chair Cassis would gladly give up these stricter standards for a less intense user for this site. Chair Cassis asked for Mr. Gillam’s comment.

Mr. Gillam said that if the Planning Commission wishes to send a positive recommendation, the motion as stated is well-framed. He suggested that Member Lipski’s language regarding a Master Plan review of the entire area was a perfect way to present this rezoning request to City Council. If the rezoning is to go forward against the Master Plan, it would only be prudent for the Master Plan to be reviewed for accuracy. Mr. Gillam said the motion could ask City Council to give some thought to rezoning additional property in the area. In any event, all standing procedures would apply to any rezoning or Master Plan amendment.

Member Lipski asked Member Avdoulos to accept the new language: The [Planning Commission] will review the triangle of land framed by Twelve Mile, West Park Drive and the railroad tracks for a possible amendment to the Master Plan for Land Use designation [from Light Industrial to Office]. He added that the positive recommendation on this request is not meant to suggest that the Planning Commission believes that the subject property’s Master Plan designation was incorrect, but that the Master Plan designation of the entire area should be reviewed for accuracy. Member Avdoulos agreed to the additional language, as did Member Lynch. Member Avdoulos said that it provides a broader picture and the re-review of the area would be more than appropriate. The Planning Commission can also get some direction from City Council as to what they are thinking.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth said that the Ordinance Review Committee met regarding these changes. City Council has sent this to the Planning Commission for the Public Hearing. The changes are primarily related to the height limitations in the OST District, and where geographically throughout the City a higher building height may be considered. The City Council asked for a quick sixty-day turnaround on this matter, and therefore the Planning Commission is asked to set the Public Hearing date for August 9, 2006.

Chair Cassis said the issue of building height has been discussed for some time. The Planning Commission is charged with holding the Public Hearing.

Member Meyer reviewed the information and he appreciated the fact that the City reviewed input from other cities. He took note of Mayor Pro Tem Capello’s comment that Novi may be losing this business to Farmington Hills where the standards allow for taller buildings. He felt it could be time to consider prudently this element of change. It will be of benefit to the City.

Member Avdoulos said the provided information was thorough. He said the recommendation sought a building height standard of 110 feet, but the maximum number of stories was not specified. Member Avdoulos said he would investigate that, because as an architect, his work centers on the number of stories, which dictates occupancy, the square footage maximum for each floor, etc. The code works alongside this number. Member Avdoulos noted that the Fire Department has weighed in and is comfortable with the new language, but he still wishes to review this information prior to the Public Hearing.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Gutman:

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Gutman:

These appointments will be handled at the first August Planning Commission meeting.

The Planning Commission turned in their corrections for incorporation

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

There were no Consent Agenda Removals.

There were no Matters for Discussion.

There were no Supplemental Issues.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Gutman:

The meeting adjourned at 10:16 p.m.

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, August 29, 2006 Signature on File

Date Approved: September 13, 2006 Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date