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

Present: Members John Avdoulos, Brian Burke, Victor Cassis, Andrew Gutman, Michael Lynch (arrived 8:20 PM), Michael Meyer, Mark Pehrson

Absent: Members David Lipski (excused), Wayne Wrobel (excused)

Also Present: Barbara McBeth, Director of Planning; Tim Schmitt, Planner; Brian Coburn, Engineer; Doris Hill, Woodland and Landscape Consultant; Tom Schultz, City Attorney

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

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

No one from the audience wished to speak.

There was no Correspondence to share.

There will be a Master Plan and Zoning Committee meeting on December 6, 2006.

Later in the meeting Chair Cassis commented that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee would begin analyzing the City’s Master Plan now for the next update. He was looking forward to those discussions.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth told the Planning Commission that Planner Mark Spencer would be presenting the Pathway and Sidewalk Prioritization to City Council on Monday, November 13, 2006. Member Meyer and Member Burke were provided the power point presentation at the table, and Ms. McBeth asked them to make any necessary comments to Mr. Spencer prior to Monday’s meeting. The full Committee for this project includes three Planning Commission members, two City Council members and a Parks and Recreation Committee member.

Ms. McBeth told the Planning Commission that the second meeting in November is typically slated for a study session, and she noted that the meeting falls within five days following a holiday so Public Hearings are not typically heard in these cases, per the Planning Commission Rules. Currently there are a few items that are rather important that would be Public Hearings, and she asked the Planning Commission to set aside their rule and allow Public Hearings to be held on that date.

Chair Cassis stated that he has spoken about this with Ms. McBeth and he felt if there was something of an urgent nature such as this, it was the Planning Commission’s duty to take on the consideration of these items. He gave his consent to arrange Public Hearings for that date. No one from the Planning Commission had an issue with that decision.

There was no Consent Agenda.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Waad Seba for Woodland Permit approval to allow the construction of a sanitary sewer to serve four parcels located north of Cottisford Drive, west of Novi Road in Section 27. The Applicant is proposing a sanitary sewer extension.

Planner Tim Schmitt told the Planning Commission about this project. The location is north of Novi Road. It is zoned R-4, Single Family Residential, master planned for Single Family Residential. To the north is Weston Court Estates, zoned R-4 and master planned for Single Family Residential. The existing Brookland Farms subdivision runs along Cottisford and is master planned for Single Family Residential. To the south the property is zoned R-3. Across Novi Road is Saddle Creek Apartments, zoned RM-1 and master planned for Multiple Family Residential.

The subject property is virtually covered in woodlands. There are no wetlands. Mr. Waad Seba is requesting a sanitary sewer extension approval. This is an innocuous project, but it is somewhat complicated by the amount of woodlands on the property. The Applicant wishes to extend the sewer service from Cottisford to the north, along the rear of the three parcels that front on Novi Road, and the one parcel that fronts onto Cottisford. Ultimately, it is expected that there will be three new curb cuts onto Novi Road and one curb cut onto Cottisford. At this time, no homes are being planned and no subdivision is requested. The Applicant did receive approval for these lot splits in the traditional method of splitting lots. There were enough splits left on the property to achieve the four parcels. The only action requested at this time is the approval of the Woodland Permit, which will allow the sanitary sewer extension to be built. Both the Engineering Review and the Woodland Review recommend approval, subject to some minor changes that can be made prior to the Stamping Set approval.

Mr. Schmitt said that engineer Brian Coburn has been working with Mr. Seba on this project. Mr. Coburn was available to answer to questions, as was Ms. Doris Hill, the Woodland Consultant.

Chair Cassis asked whether there was any relationship between this project and Novi Township. Mr. Schmitt said that the township’s boundary starts a few parcels west of the subject site.

Mr. Waad Seba addressed the Planning Commission. He said the sewer line currently runs north of Nine Mile and runs east and west. He wished to head the line north to Cottisford and then west along Cottisford. This is approximately a 500-foot extension. This will service the four lots that were subdivided about eighteen months prior. The design provides the least amount of impact on the trees. He thought that only two regulated trees would have to be removed. He would place money in the tree fund for these trees. He said many designs were considered and this is the least disruptive.

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

Member Avdoulos concurred with Mr. Schmitt’s analysis of the request. This is the cleanest route for the extension. He thought that the Engineering Review was acceptable, and the Woodland Review is straight forward. He asked about the placement fees into the tree fund. Ms. Hill said that was acceptable and that Mr. Seba would have to submit a letter to the City acknowledging his intent to place that money into the fund.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Chair Cassis asked about the curb cuts. Mr. Schmitt said that the way the split was done, there is no access to three of the sites from Cottisford. The Planning Department is not pleased about the Novi Road curb cuts, but the Applicant was within his right to split his properties in such a manner. Mr. Schmitt said that when Mr. Seba first came forward with his request, he was encouraged to speak with the Road Commission of Oakland County, which he believed Mr. Seba did. He was not aware of any objection voiced by the Road Commission. However, until the Road Commission gets a Right-Of-Way request from Mr. Seba, they probably wouldn’t lodge a formal objection. Chair Cassis wondered if there would be enough room on these lots to provide an access road. Mr. Schmitt said these are very tight lots – they are the minimal size in which they can be designed.

Member Avdoulos asked whether the Street Tree Text Amendment that is part of this evening’s Public Hearings would affect these homesites. Mr. Schmitt said that it would; these sites would have to place street trees along the road frontage, subject to approval from the Road Commission.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Jonathan Hiipakka of G. Fisher Construction Company, for a recommendation to City Council for rezoning of property in Section 16, south of Twelve Mile, east of Beck Road, from I-1, Light Industrial, to OST, Planned Office Service Technology District. The subject property is 3.56 acres.

Planner Tim Schmitt described the request to the Planning Commission. The property is currently zoned I-1, as are the properties to the west and north. Further north the property is zoned I-2. To the east is R-A property which has not been rezoned to Office yet, as anticipated. To the northwest is Wixom property zoned RA-1 and M-1 (Light Industrial). The subject property is master planned for Office uses, as are all of the properties along the south side of Twelve Mile. The north side has Light Industrial uses along the frontage, and Heavy Industrial uses further north. I-96 is south of the property. Mr. Schmitt noted that the ITC corridor also runs along the north side of I-96. To the east is the Keystone Medical Center and the Beck Road interchange is to the west.

There are very little wetlands in the area. Natural features will be further discussed at the time of site plan submittal. There are some regulated woodlands on the southeast corner of the site. Mr. Schmitt noted that this proposal was expected several years ago. This request is consistent with two other rezoning requests in the immediate area. Keystone was rezoned in 2003. Staff recommends approval of the request as it is in compliance with the Master Plan for Land Use. It will lead to the submittal of a site plan that continues to promote Office land use in this area. This is a good Office property, with accessibility from Beck Road and visibility from the interchange. This is a viable site for a medical office, and is consistent with the Keystone property to the east.

The Engineering Review indicates that there will be a slight decrease in water and sanitary usage with this rezoning request. There are no utility-related concerns. The Traffic Review indicates there are no concerns, though there will be a slight increase in traffic with the rezoning. The Planning Department supports this request, and it expects to see the remaining five properties in this corridor – the south side of Twelve Mile - come forward with Office rezoning requests.

Jim Butler of Professional Engineering Associates addressed the Planning Commission. He is the engineer on this project. They are working on the site plan, the submittal of which is contingent upon the approval of this rezoning request. The plan is for a single-story medical office building of about 25,000 square feet.

Chair Cassis asked about the building to the east of this site. He noticed they have a low occupancy rate, and he wondered if this future project had tenants already. Mr. Butler said that this building is being specifically designed for a group of doctors. They will be the owners of the building. It will be 100% occupied.

Member Pehrson read the correspondence into the record:

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

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Avdoulos:

Member Avdoulos commented that more tenant build-outs are underway in the Keystone building. He said that the building quality in this area, from Meadowbrook to Beck Road, is very pleasing. He cited the Premier Medical across from Dick’s Sports as an example of a quality project. He said the City is very fortunate, first to have a rezoning request come forward that meets the intent of the Master Plan, and second that there is already a use for the site.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth said that the packets were prepared for the following two issues, items 3 and 4 on the Agenda. Public Hearing notices were also sent to the adjacent property owners. Unfortunately, the notices slated for a paper of general circulation were not published. There were audience members present to comment on the projects, so the Public Hearing was opened on both projects to accommodate those residents.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Matt Sosin of Northern Equities Group, for Preliminary Site Plan, Woodland Permit, Wetland Permit, and Storm Water Management Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 1, north of Thirteen Mile, west of Haggerty Road, in the OST, Planned Office Service Technology District. The Applicant is only proposing the construction of roads and utilities.

Chair Cassis opened the floor for public comment:

Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing. Consideration of the plan was postponed but will return to the Planning Commission on November 29, 2006. The Public Hearing notices will be resent, and the newspaper notice will be published. The Planning Commission members were asked to keep their packet materials.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Matt Sosin of Northern Equities Group, for Preliminary Site Plan, Section Nine Waiver, Woodland Permit, Wetland Permit, and Stormwater Management Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 1, north of Thirteen Mile, between Haggerty Road and the M-5 Connector, in the OST, Planned Office Service Technology District. The subject property is 13.37 acres and the Applicant is proposing to construct a three-story 150,000 square foot office building.

Chair Cassis opened the floor for public comment. No one wished to speak so Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing. Consideration of the plan was postponed but will return to the Planning Commission on November 29, 2006. The Public Hearing notices will be resent, and the newspaper notice will be published. The Planning Commission members were asked to keep their packet materials.

Member Avdoulos asked that this portion of the minutes be provided for the absent Planning Commission members so they are aware of Mr. Broder’s comments.

The Public Hearing was opened for Planning Commission’s recommendation to City Council for an ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 97-18, as amended, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance, Section 2509, Landscape Standards, in order to require the placement of street trees in connection with single-family home sites not located within subdivisions or site condominiums.

Planner Tim Schmitt explained that recently a discussion of the Design and Construction Standards was held at City Council, during which questions regarding street trees and sidewalks came up. City Council directed the City Attorney to draft language to address this Street Tree issue. It was reviewed against Chapter 26.5 (Performance Guarantees) of the Ordinance as well. This text amendment requires single lots, not part of a subdivision or condominium, to plant street trees similar to all other single family home sites. The Subdivision Ordinance is typically where this requirement is found; if the homesite is not part of a subdivision, then the Ordinance did not pertain to the homesite. This is another Ordinance "housecleaning" item.

Member Avdoulos confirmed that this text amendment affects homes that are freestanding homesites. Mr. Schmitt agreed, citing Mr. Seba’s parcels as an example of homesites that are affected by this amendment. Member Avdoulos’ home on Nine Mile would also be affected. Street trees would be required along the street frontage – one every 35 feet. Mr. Schmitt said that sidewalks are a requirement for these types of homes now as well.

The Design and Construction Standards were recently amended to allow the Engineering Department leeway in their reviews. For example, if there is an existing woodland where street trees are required, the City will work with the Applicant on where the street trees can be placed. Existing natural features take precedence and allow for a waiver to be granted.

Member Avdoulos noted that he was not in favor of a recent Ordinance amendment limiting the placement of fences, in light of the rural area in which he lives. He hoped that this Ordinance amendment did not adversely affect his neighbors in a similar fashion.

Member Meyer noted that Section 1.3.f.2 states, "…all unhealthy and dead plant material shall be replaced by the developer, builder or homeowner within three months following notice or the next appropriate planting period, whichever occurs first." He asked for clarification on whether this issue must be addressed prior to a homeowner getting his Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Schmitt said this refers to street trees planted for the site. This is the same standard used throughout the City. If the property owner plants a tree and it dies, the City expects the tree to be replanted. Member Meyer did not think that was the statement written. He thought the language should state, "If the tree that is planted dies or is unhealthy within the year, the City expects that it will be replaced." Member Meyer thought that the language in the proposal suggests that if someone moves to a property he/she would be expected to replace any and all dead plant material. Mr. Schmitt thought the comment had previously been echoed by the Staff, and he said they would come up with some better language for the version that goes before City Council.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Meyer:

The Public Hearing was opened for Planning Commission’s recommendation to City Council for an ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 97-18, as amended, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance, to amend the process for outdoor eating areas to streamline the review and approval of applications.

Planner Tim Schmitt explained that this request for a text amendment began with City Council Member Andrew Mutch noticing that nearly every outdoor seating request from restaurants had to go through the ZBA. The process is cumbersome. The ZBA typically grants a variance for a short period of time and then asks the Applicant to return the following year for confirmation that there haven’t been any concerns or complaints. Then the variance is granted for an extended period of time. The Staff has always considered this a bit odd, that there isn’t a more straightforward policy. City Council asked for the text amendment to address this outdoor seating issue.

Mr. Schmitt said that Section 2524 is now being recommended for consideration. This section is for outdoor restaurant seating. It will allow outdoor seating for any restaurant in the City, regardless of the zoning district in which the restaurant is located. For restaurants proposing the seating as an addition, this will be reviewed and approved administratively, which is a change to Section 2516. Any new restaurant can propose this in conjunction with their site plan planning process.

Specific language has been included to address hours of operation with respect to the interior restaurant. This is meant to dismiss the notion of outdoor restaurant seating areas becoming a place to hang out after hours. Thus far, this hasn’t been a problem with any of the existing outdoor seating establishments.

Items that will be taken into account during review will include parking and areas in the right-of-way, e.g., Main Street. The existing Town Center District provisions will be used throughout the other districts. Property insurance must be maintained on the outdoor seating aspect of the business. The Planning Department supports this text amendment and agrees this will make it easier for restaurants in the future.

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

Chair Cassis confirmed that there isn’t a ratio maximum with regard to inside and outside capacities. Mr. Schmitt said that the square footage for the outdoor seating area will count in the parking calculation. Ingress and egress standards must be met. Accessibility requirements have to be met. The Applicant will not be able to take up the entire sidewalk. The parking must be sufficient on the site for the request to be approved.

Member Lynch arrived at 8:20 PM.

Member Burke asked about item "h" regarding outside entertainment, either live or recorded, and the requirement for City Council approval. Mr. Schmitt answered that a radio would fall under the noise provisions of Section 2519. This section piggybacks a section found in the City Code that states outdoor entertainment is prohibited unless approved by City Council. The section references live bands and things of that nature. Member Gutman asked whether the term "recorded" should be removed from this language, so as not to be confused with a radio.

City Attorney Tom Schultz asked the Planning Commission whether they felt recorded music is something that would be appropriate coming from loud speakers.

Member Burke translated this language to mean that City Council approval would be required if an Applicant wants the same ambiance music from indoors piped outdoors. He wanted clarification. Mr. Schultz said he thought the language could in fact be interpreted as such. It would not be unusual for a restaurant to want piped-in music in an outdoor seating area. Another provision even allows for the outdoor seating area to allow alcohol. Typically these aren’t amenities that one gets automatically. These are often intentional regulations in this kind of an ordinance.

Member Avdoulos said he understood where the confusion lies. The piped-in music probably has a decibel limit as described in the Ordinance. Maybe the word "recorded" is connected to the word "entertainment", be it canned instrumental music for a band or karaoke. This should probably be cleared up a bit, so there isn’t a line of applicants waiting in line just to ask permission to play music through their speaker systems. Member Avdoulos read the language and hooked the word "recorded" onto "entertainment" so he didn’t have an issue with it.

Chair Cassis asked how this information came to be in an outdoor seating text amendment anyway. Director of Planning Barbara McBeth explained that outside components are not typically allowed in any of the zoning districts – except for items like parking, trash receptacles, loading/unloading, etc. This provision regarding music can be proposed, or the Planning Commission can state as their policy that this is not a concern of theirs. The noise generated from music or radios may or not be a concern of the Planning Commission or the City Council. She said perhaps there could be a clarification on the decibel level.

Chair Cassis thought that this item might be better addressed in an ordinance regarding noise. Mr. Schultz said that in the normal course, the City is not looking to penalize business owners who play music outside their establishments if there isn’t a violation of the decibel level found in the City’s Noise Ordinance. Typically, a ticket wouldn’t be written in this situation unless there is some other aspect of nuisance. In a way, this is more than an Outdoor Seating Ordinance, it has to do with the concept of moving an aspect of the inside use to the outside. This tends to bring with it other kinds of activities, like an upgraded noise level (people will talk louder to talk over the music) so now there is almost a different kind of use aspect. This language is just a suggestion for consideration.

Chair Cassis cited an example of a business that used to blare music outside even before it had outdoor seating. He wondered if a business owner would really know about this standard if it was in the Outdoor Seating Ordinance but the business wasn’t providing outdoor seating (so the Applicant never read the provision). Now the business will be approached by an Ordinance Officer for violating the noise provision but they’ll claim they didn’t know about it.

Member Meyer said he couldn’t imagine someone being told that he couldn’t serenade tables with his acoustic guitar because of this noise issue. He, himself, did this for two years at a yacht club. In Novi there are already so many hurdles to jump over, and here is another. Will outdoor-sitting restaurant patrons just be wished a nice monastic meal, and be instructed to keep the noise down?

Mr. Schmitt said that restaurateurs who request outdoor seating will receive instructions stating that: Outdoor hours of operation need to be consistent with the indoor hours of operation. The area must be kept clean. Furniture items must be removed during the fall and winter. The noise must be kept under the 80 decibel limit, 75 decibels at night. In the future these applicants will expect to go to the ZBA but they will instead be directed to submit for administrative review, and at this time they will receive these instructions.

Member Burke suggested that perhaps the language could also state that the radio request could be approved administratively so that this seemingly small matter doesn’t have to go before City Council. Mr. Schultz said alternatively the language could just be removed, and the Noise Ordinance provision would then govern the outdoor music use. The Planning Commission members vocalized their approval of this suggestion.

Chair Cassis said the thing here is notification. If business owners understand the parameters, they can abide by the rules and avoid being prosecuted for being in violation of the law.

Member Burke noted the outdoor timeframe is listed as April 15 through October 31. He understood that the City doesn’t want storage outdoors, but if a November provides nice days, he wouldn’t want a business precluded from providing outdoor seating during that time.

Member Pehrson noted that some restaurants also have propane heaters to improve the weather conditions. Mr. Schultz suggested that the dates could be extended; this is a policy question. If there isn’t a timeframe, the business owners have been known to let the tables and chairs languish in the snowy winter. The furniture gets beat up. Keeping an end date – even if it is extended to mid-November or the end of November – is probably a good idea.

Member Lynch thought the date provided was generous. He said when the foliage falls, the noise attenuation is adversely affected and there could be more of a noise nuisance problem. The primary problem really is the noise emanating through the adjacent areas. He didn’t think he could support the date being moved later into the calendar.

Member Pehrson suggested that date be kept as October 31, 2006.

Member Pehrson asked about the six-foot clearance between the seating area and the street. Was this a Building Department code? Mr. Schmitt said there is a minimum clearance, and in some cases in Main Street the right-of-way is against the building. He thought the Building Department was satisfied with six feet being the minimum – it allows for accessible two-way travel.

Member Pehrson considered properties abutting Grand River, and if the tables were within three or four feet of that road, there could be issues with careening cars.

Member Lynch asked from where the decibel level is measured. Mr. Schmitt said that it is a straight measurement from the nearest property line to the source of the noise.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth said that the Public Hearing date has already been noticed as November 29, 2006. She said that the amendment relates to the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act. This setting a Public Hearing date is just a formality.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Gutman:

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Lynch:

There were no Consent Agenda Removals for Commission Action.

There were no Matters for Discussion.

Member Meyer thanked Planner Tim Schmitt for the follow up contact with Chief Lee Begole. He appreciated Mr. Schmitt taking the extra effort.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Moved by Member Pehrson,

The meeting adjourned at 8:43 PM.

FRI 11/10/06 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

MON 11/13/06 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 11/14/06 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

THU/FRI 11/23 & 11/24 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

MON 11/27/06 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 11/29/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 12/04/06 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

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

WED 12/13/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 12/18/06 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

MON/TUE 12/25 & 12/26 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

WED 01/10/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

Transcribed by Jane L. Schimpf, November 15, 2006 Signature on File

Date Approved: November 29, 2006 Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date