The meeting was called to order at 7:01 PM.

Present: Members John Avdoulos, Brian Burke, Victor Cassis, Andrew Gutman, David Lipski (7:19 PM), Michael Lynch, Michael Meyer, Mark Pehrson, Wayne Wrobel

Also Present: Barbara McBeth, Director of Planning; Tim Schmitt, Planner; Mark Spencer, Planner; Ben Croy, Engineer; David Beschke, Landscape Architect; Doris Hill, Woodland Consultant; Tom Schultz, City Attorney

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

Moved by Member Wrobel, seconded by Member Pehrson:

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 Fountain Walk went before the City Council in December to describe some changes they will be proposing for their site. The Planning Commission will see these plans if they are ever formally submitted. The City Council meeting can be seen on the City’s website. Second readings of the Temporary Use text amendment and the MZEA text amendment were both approved.

Ms. McBeth asked that the Planning Commission members make their Committee requests for the fiscal year 2007-08 budget. She reminded the Planning Commission that the Capital Improvement Program will be discussed sometime around February 9, 2007. The City Council will hold their goal setting session on January 13^th and then the CIP document will be prepared for the CIP Committee to review.

Chair Cassis told the Planning Commission that his wife, Nancy, was sworn into office, her second term as senator. He thought the event displayed democracy in progress. He said that the majority leader and the minority lead both gave their speeches, and then they embraced, signifying a spirit of cooperation for the good of Michigan.

There was no Consent Agenda.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Group 3, Inc., for Preliminary Site Plan with Site Condominium, Wetland Permit, Woodland Permit, and Storm Water Management Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 16, south of Grand River Avenue, east of Beck Road, in the I-1, Light Industrial District. The subject property is 10.73 acres and the Applicant is proposing to build four multi-story medical/general office buildings.

Planner Tim Schmitt described the property for the Planning Commission. Five properties comprise the area. The site is adjacent to Heyn Drive. It is zoned I-1, as are the properties to the east and west. Aladdin Heating and Cooling is to the west. Central Park Estates is to the south and is zoned RM-1. There is also some OS-1 land to the south. The north side of Grand River is zoned OST. The subject property and the surrounding sites are master planned for Office uses. The Applicant is proposing an office use, which is permitted in the Light Industrial district.

There is a fairly large wetland onsite and offsite. There are woodlands on the site as well.

The design will incorporate drives from Grand River and Heyn Drive. The Planning Commission reviewed this plan on September 13, 2006, at which time the request was postponed to provide the Applicant time to clarify three items: Will the Applicant redesign the site to preserve the landmark walnut tree? Can the Applicant clarify the ownership of the property? When will the woodland violation on the southeast portion of the property be addressed? The Applicant and the City worked together on an alternative plan, but in the end, the plan didn’t really benefit any of the three pending issues.

The Applicant has provided the Planning Commission with correspondence relating to the three issues. They have worked out a tentative schedule to resolve the woodland violation. A letter from the Applicant dated November 3, 2006 provides the timeframe for the resolution. The City has agreed to hold in abeyance the required $120,000 performance bond associated with this woodland violation. Typically there aren’t violations such as this on a property with an active site plan. Since the Applicant has been cooperating with the City and there is comfort in accepting their proposal for correction. The first step in their process has already been completed. The next step is due by the end of February.

The Applicant has chosen not to redesign his site to preserve the walnut tree. Again, this was a suggestion only; the Applicant does not believe there is a feasible solution.

The Applicant will be creating a condominium for this site. The Planning Commission is asked to approve the condominium. The Planning Department will review this documentation at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

The reviews presented to the Planning Commission are the same as what was distributed last September. One additional issue has since been raised. During the construction of the Remax Office Center, to the south of this property, some flooding was identified in the wetland. Remax uses this wetland for their stormwater management plan. The water is eventually meant to channel south under Beck Road. The subject property also relies on this wetland. Civil Engineer Ben Croy has been attending meetings regarding this problem, and it appears that the problem is downstream. At this point, the location has not been identified, and Remax is required to do some additional work, as does this Applicant, to show that their plans are feasible. Mr. Croy is not overly comfortable with stating that this project is feasible from an engineering standpoint because of this issue. Given the gravity of this situation, the Planning Department recommends that this plan return to the Planning Commission for Final Site Plan approval. The City’s concern is that something major will change on this site plan, which will require the plan to return to the Planning Commission anyway. Therefore, the concern is being placed on the table right now; if the Final Site Plan does not change, the plan will be placed on the Consent Agenda, acknowledging the plan’s conformance to the Preliminary Site Plan approval.

The motions presented to the Planning Commission for consideration are somewhat different from the standard language. The Planning Commission should ask for clarification on any of the items of which they are unsure.

Mr. Schmitt clarified that the while the woodland violation is not yet resolved, the Planning Department is satisfied with the efforts of the Applicant to resolve the matter within a specified timeframe.

Mr. Larry Shew from Group 3 addressed the Planning Commission. He stated that they have addressed the woodland violation. They are creating a condominium. This project is unique in that they are combining sites owned by three different property owners. He started the project and was very active in the early stages of this site’s design.

Mr. Shew understood that the tree is a great concern to the community. An earlier solution for preservation of that tree included moving one of the buildings forward, but if the buildings were moved forward, it would be worse for the tree. The tree could not hinder the design of this site, and even trying to preserve it (not cutting it down) would be problematic in light of the grading and paving and so forth.

Mr. Shew said that design has a traditional look. The buildings will be multi-storied, mostly brick. They intend to have a lot of medical office based on the Providence Hospital expansion. He noted that these units will be owner-occupied which reduces the "For Lease" signs on the site. Owners take more pride so the buildings will be well-maintained.

Chair Cassis opened the floor for public comment:

Harper Cunningham, owner of the Remax property: He praised the beauty of the subject buildings. He said there is a wetland mess on their site, and he feared that approving this project would further affect his site. He asked that the approval be withheld until the flooding issue is resolved. He said that their design was built in accordance with the plan approved by the City engineers, and it is not functioning properly. The north-south ditch along Beck Road has been cleaned up, but no one has the answer yet. Mr. Cunningham then said that the City does know what the problem is, but he is unsure whether the City will agree to correct the problem.

No Public Hearing correspondence was received, so Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing.

Member Lipski arrived at 7:19 PM.

Member Lynch asked what the drainage problem was. Mr. Croy said that it appears that the site was not built up enough – the grading is too low. This may be due to a bad survey or a slightly inaccurate survey. Everyone is working on a solution, but it is not an easy problem to resolve. An acceptable solution has not been agreed upon. There is no disagreement between the parties, Mr. Croy noted. The drains under the Remax parking lot are remaining full, due to the head of water surrounding their site. This site, the Olde Town site, will also discharge their stormwater to the same wetland system. What is needed is for this Applicant’s engineer to state the flow path of their site. If it is going to further impact the Remax site, it will not be allowed. If this Applicant can show that the two sites operate independently of each other, then it can be considered. The Applicant indicates they have a favorable topography to analyze.

Member Lynch asked if the problem was that the City was trying to get water to run uphill. Mr. Croy responded in the affirmative, clarifying that the water could not drain to a low enough point.

Member Lynch asked if approving this plan would exacerbate the problem. Mr. Croy said that it hasn’t been proven one way or another, what this plan would do to the drainage. Mr. Croy said that the solution might be to add a pump of some sort.

Member Wrobel wondered whether anything had been done incorrectly on the Remax approval. Mr. Schmitt said that the City was not at fault. The plans were approved in 2005. It appears that the survey data supplied by Remax was wrong. It might be that there is a high point that wasn’t caught. There could be a blockage. There is a potential for this plan to exacerbate the plan, but not necessarily. This is a big wetland complex in this area. There might be a wetland violation or there might have been some dumping in the area that just needs to be cleaned up. There are places this water can go – west or south toward Asbury Park.

Member Wrobel asked whether something can be put into place that would stop this from happening again. Mr. Schmitt responded that the City is only able to review the plans that are given to it. If an error is made in the submittal, the City can not be responsible for that. There are plenty of solutions. The goal is to find the solution that will resolve Remax’s problem. The Olde Town group will be providing data to the City. As a cautionary measure, the Planning Department would like this Final Site Plan to come before the Planning Commission. Member Wrobel did not want to compound this water problem.

Member Wrobel liked the fact that the plan would become a condominium. He liked the placement of the buildings and the parking. He was pleased that the Applicant designed the plan around the wetlands. He could easily support this project in conjunction with the resolution of the water problem.

Member Burke asked whether the unusual request to bring this plan back before the Planning Commission is a method with which the Applicant is allowed to move forward on other aspects of the job. Mr. Schmitt said that the plan that is reviewed at preliminary by the Planning Commission is rather bare-bones. The Engineering Review only comments to the extent that the plan appears to have feasibility. From preliminary to final is when most of the hard-engineering work is put together. He agreed with Mr. Burke’s comment … this will allow the Applicant to move forward under the assumption that the engineering is likely going to work.

Member Burke asked whether the plan would ultimately move forward if there was a disagreement about whether the water problem had been addressed. Mr. Schmitt responded that, if any detail couldn’t be worked out, the plan will not be approved.

Member Burke would support the project. He asked whether there were any commitments for any of the space. Mr. Shew said several reservations have been placed – one building is sold out, which represents 25%. Typically the activity doesn’t start until ground is broken. Their typical project is sold out by the time it is complete. Mr. Shew said he was aware that the engineering has to work in order for the plan to go forward.

Member Burke wondered what the Staff’s position was on the walnut tree. Mr. Schmitt said that it was a great tree, but he understood the Applicant’s rationale in not keeping it. Its location has a lopsided effect on the property.

Member Meyer had no problem with removing the tree, although he appreciated its landmark status. He hoped that the issues with the water could be resolved.

Member Avdoulos was not present when the plan was first reviewed at the Planning Commission. He noted that a lot of the issues had been resolved. He asked about the Building Department comments regarding their concern for setbacks. Mr. Schmitt responded that the Building Department always voices its concern about multiple-parcel projects and the placement of the buildings relative to the property lines. The comment in the reviews regarding the property lines was the Planning Department’s acknowledgement that the Building Department would catch this, and therefore the request was made for the Applicant to make this project a condominium.

Member Avdoulos asked whether each building would be sold and the spaces would be leased. Mr. Shew said that the tenants would buy the amount of square footage in which they are interested. Each building could have four or five units. Each owner will be a member of the association. One entity will run the property – the association. He explained that Parcel 1 would have one owner. Parcel 2 will have one owner. Parcel 3 will have two owners. He said if one of the buildings were to be shifted over, it could put pedestrians too close to an area expected to have a lot of traffic. The owners like having parking on more than one side of their building – they found this to be a more marketable design – so shifting the building was not a popular idea.

Member Avdoulos asked if each building would look the same within the complex. Mr. Shew said that each building would use the same materials. The architecture will look the same. Member Avdoulos said that it was more of a row development than a campus development and that the buildings shouldn’t look exactly the same. It would add a bit more character if each building had something of its own personality. Mr. Shew said he could change up the brick color. Member Avdoulos said he was looking for buildings that work well with one another but the differences to the building lend interest. Member Avdoulos said that this is a 50 mph road, so as much as the Applicant is trying to fit in the traditional architecture, the project isn’t going to be as looked at as much as buildings in the middle of a downtown area.

Member Avdoulos said that the Applicant could also ask for waivers that would allow for the preservation of the tree. He didn’t see where any waiver requests for this were ever made. He would have liked to see a few more configurations. He said there are 445 parking spaces for the uses of these buildings, assuming 50% medical. Member Avdoulos wondered if the parking lot is maxed out. Suppose the Applicant comes back and states that they have more medical office than planned for? Mr. Shew said that the percentage of medical is based on his company’s own track record. If this number does change, the building’s owner would have to demonstrate how there is enough parking. They have never had a 100% medical-occupied building.

Member Avdoulos said that Grand River is sprucing up. The new buildings are nicely done. Aladdin Heating and Cooling updated an old building and it looks nice. Member Avdoulos felt bad about losing the tree. It has a history and serves as a landmark. Just because it is in the way, it is going to be knocked down. There are instances in the City where a tree has been designed around, although on the Providence site, for example, there was more property with which to work. There are other municipalities that won’t even let a tree be cut down. Hilton Head Island is an example. Member Avdoulos said that trees can survive in this environment. He said that the tree is the one aspect that makes it hard for him to support the project. If he were to give in, he would like to see each building have a different characteristic. Mr. Shew said that they could make them so they aren’t exactly the same; he understood Member Avdoulos’ concern. He would ensure that it looks like one project.

Member Avdoulos said that he did not want to see a cookie-cutter project, which lends itself to the City putting in a "Similar/Dissimilar" Ordinance to address this problem with residential developments. Commercial projects are different, though, because they are not as big. This is not an industrial park. He cited Beck North as a park where the similarities make sense because the park has its own road system and that is what that market entails. This project is high profile and the City is looking for high quality. Member Avdoulos reiterated that he would accept the tree’s demise if the Applicant would promise something – a pediment change or window configuration – in exchange. Mr. Shew said he liked the idea of variation to rid the plan of redundancy.

Member Avdoulos suggested that Applicant consider using cast stone like Arriscraft instead of CMU. The work that this Applicant has done with the City thus far is appreciated. He said that he trusts the Planning Department when they say that they don’t want to support a waiver request, because they work with planning issues every day and have a handle on these requests. He said he also listens to the consultants. He thought that it would help to have the Planning Commission review the Final Site Plan as well. Mr. Shew agreed to modify the plans to provide variation.

Member Avdoulos was glad to hold this conversation with the project’s architect because he has a connection to the site more so than say, the project’s attorney. He maintained that the beauty of that landmark tree was important to him, but he understood that the Applicant has agreed to work with the City on the plan.

Mr. Shew said that he would make some changes to the building, but not enough to change the character or ruin the village effect. Member Avdoulos said that the City wants this area of Grand River to be successful, citing the hard work of Providence and Paradise Park as projects whose owners worked hard on their appearances.

Mr. Shew said that he would not introduce something of a contemporary nature. His tenants are interested in the traditional look.

Member Pehrson was disappointed that suggestions made at the first Public Hearing were not taken into consideration to save the tree. He said there were examples of projects along Grand River with front yard parking. That could have been accommodated. This property does belong to the Applicant and the Planning Commission only makes suggestions. He maintained that the tree was important and he would have liked to have seen something different.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

Member Avdoulos wished to clarify that for the Section 9 Waiver, he did not want the motion to indicate that the Applicant should use CMU. He wanted the stipulation to allow the Applicant to come in with a variation of the proposed materials and in the design of the building.

City Attorney Tom Schultz said that since the plan was coming back to the Planning Commission for Final Site Plan approval, the Planning Commission may wish to withhold the Section 9 Waiver until such time that it can review the plan. Member Pehrson asked to remove the Section 9 Waiver and state that the variation of the building will be reviewed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. Member Gutman agreed to the change.

Chair Cassis asked if the Applicant was comfortable with the level of approval he was receiving at the meeting, i.e., would this be acceptable to him, since he had stated his concern for spending more money on an unapproved project in one of his response letters to the City. Mr. Shew said he was comfortable. He said that the engineering work on the site takes a long time, but he was happy to get the approval for the site layout. He also understood that there would be another architectural review. He hoped to break ground by spring. If the Planning Commission wants to continue looking at the plan and elevations, he will get those back quickly. He said it would take a little time to come up with this many variations.

Chair Cassis said that the City has been very helpful in working with the Applicant. Mr. Shew said he appreciated it. Chair Cassis said that Mr. Cunningham has a critical problem on the Remax site and Chair Cassis happened to know all of the problems on that site. That is the biggest investment of the Cunninghams’ lives. Mr. Shew said that this was his biggest investment too. Mr. Shew didn’t want to have the same problem as Mr. Cunningham. He wanted to make sure that the plan was designed properly.

Chair Cassis said he was looking for Mr. Shew to work with Mr. Cunningham. Chair Cassis wanted to emphasize to Mr. Shew and his people that they should work with Mr. Cunningham and with the City so that the drainage solution can be achieved.

Chair Cassis shared a story about how he paid a little more money to have larger trees planted on his homesite. Chair Cassis suggested this was this Applicant’s opportunity to come up with a couple of nice, mature trees, in light of the loss of the landmark walnut tree.

Chair Cassis said that the Similar/Dissimilar Ordinance was a good Ordinance.

Chair Cassis thought this was a good project. The Applicant is able to bring together three different parties. The assemblage of parcels is very nice. There are minimal curb cuts. Chair Cassis appreciated this design. It will bring business and taxes to the City. It will bring well-needed buildings to serve the hospital. Providence wants to bring a holistic approach to their style of medicine and that is why they named themselves Providence Park. He encouraged the Applicant to call this a park as well. He encouraged them to save the wetlands and woodlands. He asked the Applicant the treat the property with a gentle hand.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

Consideration of the request of Amson Dembs Development for Preliminary Site Plan, Woodland Permit, and Storm Water Management Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 4, east of Hudson Drive between Nadlan Court and Peary Court, in the I-1, Light Industrial District. The subject property is approximately 4.18 acres, and the Applicant is proposing a 63,000 square foot speculative light industrial building.

Planner Mark Spencer reminded the Planning Commission that they previously held the Public Hearing on this project, but the Applicant was not present at that meeting so the motion was postponed.

This project is surrounded by open space on the east and west sides as part of the development of the condominium. The Master Plan designates this property for Light Industrial uses, as are the surrounding properties. The zoning of the area is also I-1. There are wetlands surrounding the site on the south and east sides. The wetlands are in the common area of the condominium. The regulated woodlands are on the subject site and surrounding it. A substantial portion of woods is being saved off site and a small pocket will be saved on site, unless deferred parking is built at a later date. There is some priority habitat area, a majority of which has been saved.

The Planning, Landscape and Engineering Reviews recommended Preliminary Site Plan approval. There are minor items that must be addressed on the Final Site Plan submittal. The parking lot setback issue is likely a scaling error on the plan. An access easement to the north must be added to the plan. The Traffic Review suggests that the sidewalk be extended along the frontage of the building so that the handicapped traffic can use the employee entrance if desired. The Applicant has indicated that they will add this sidewalk.

The Woodland Review does not recommend approval because the Consultant wants many detailed changes to the plan. With those changes the Planning Department can recommend approval of this plan. The Applicant has agreed to provide the items.

Larry Stoby of Amson Dembs Development addressed the Planning Commission. He apologized for missing the last meeting.

Member Gutman confirmed that the Applicant has agreed to make all of the required changes.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Meyer:

Member Avdoulos said that this plan was ready to be approved when its Public Hearing was held. This demonstrates the relationship that Amson Dembs has with the City. His only concern was with the Woodland Review, but the Applicant has indicated that the issues will be corrected.

Member Avdoulos asked whether the easement language was acceptable, in light of the fact that it states the actual location may be adjusted to accommodate the future development of the adjacent parcel. Mr. Spencer said that the Planning Department anticipated that this would be a floating easement. The language will encompass the whole site, temporarily.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Meyer:

moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Meyer:

Consideration of the request of Etkin Properties for Preliminary Site Plan and Stormwater Management Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 15, south of Twelve Mile, west of Cabaret Drive, in the OST, Planned Office Service Technology District. The subject property is approximately 4.41 acres and the Applicant is proposing to construct a four-story, 147 room hotel on the third unit in the Timber Creek Office Park.

Member Lipski disclosed that he sits on a Committee with Mr. Etkin, and while he didn’t believe this to be a conflict of interest, he wished to make the relationship known.

Planner Tim Schmitt described the project for the Planning Commission. To the east is Fountain Walk Mall. To the north is Residence Inn. Further north is the Telcom Credit Union. There are woodlands on the south side of the site. The woodland and wetland issues were addressed on the full site plan of this condominium project. The wetland in the far southwest corner of the site is in a Conservation Easement.

The property is zoned OST as are the properties to the north, south and west. To the east is property zoned RC. The Master Plan is consistent with the current zoning.

The Applicant proposes a hotel for the fourth unit the condominium. Because of a change to the condominium, there isn’t actually a third unit – it has been reconfigured into Unit 4. The Planning Commission might remember that Timber Creek Office Building B has already been proposed for this site. That original proposal included the curblines and underground utilities. This Applicant does not plan to modify much from those plans. There is a curbline that runs along the rear of the proposed building that will now be removed. No parking is proposed for the rear. The Applicant is not going to do any construction in that area. The detention basin is already in place, though some minor modifications are expected. The Planning Department notes that there are 19 parking spaces in a row; the Applicant requires a waiver to design a site with more than 15 in a row. This is a fairly minor change.

There are other issues for the Planning Commission to discuss. The plan appears to encroach the Conservation Easement to the south end. The Applicant does not want to do that and therefore they will adjust their discharge point by a few feet to address that issue.

Mr. Schmitt said that the OST District allows hotels that are part of an overall development, when constructed at the same time as one of the principal permitted uses of the development. The Planning Department is unclear on whether a second hotel should be approved for this project. The Planning Commission is asked to make a finding on this and make an interpretation of this section of the Ordinance, Section 2301a.

Mr. Schmitt said that the franchise bid is up for consideration for this area. Etkin Equities has the opportunity to place this franchise on the subject parcel. There is also a site in Wixom that is being considered.

A ZBA variance will ultimately be required for this proposal for the parking lot setback. This was previously discussed when Sallie Mae considered building on this site. The ZBA approved it for Sallie Mae, and while the Planning Department is not a big fan of the request, it is expected that the ZBA will approve it for this proposal as well. The landscape islands are typically designed in these instances, similar to what is seen between Unit 1 and Unit 2.

The Applicant has indicated that they will be able to address all of the issues outlined in the reviews. There are some waivers that the Applicant will be seeking from the Planning Commission of which the Planning Department is not necessarily in support. The Applicant wishes to eliminate the street trees along Cabaret Drive. This would be the only site along this drive that has street trees. The applicant seeks a waiver of the berm along the Cabaret Drive right-of-way. The plan states, "Existing berm to remain," though a berm is not there. The Applicant should redesign the plan to incorporate a berm, or the Planning Commission will have to grant this waiver. A waiver would be required to substitute subcanopy, understory and evergreen trees for canopy trees. The Applicant has designed the majority of their site with trees that would not normally be permitted for the canopy tree requirement.

The Planning Commission must determine whether to grant the variance for the 19 parking spaces in a row. A waiver of the plantings for that area should also be granted in light of the wetland and woodland in the area.

Mr. Schmitt said that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee reviewed this hotel request for conformance. The Committee did not make a formal recommendation, one way or the other. Chair Cassis thought this was a technicality, whether another hotel could be allowed on this site.

Member Avdoulos said that the Committee discussed this but did not formally vote on anything. Member Avdoulos said that the members stated their opinions but felt that the decision should be determined by the Planning Commission as a whole. Member Avdoulos said the pending question was whether there was any legal reason in place that would preclude another hotel.

Mr. Schmitt said what is really pending is the interpretation of the Ordinance. Chair Cassis asked City Attorney Tom Schultz to comment. Mr. Schultz responded that it is up to the Planning Commission to determine whether the use of the term "development site" in the Ordinance is broad enough to include something outside of the metes and bounds of just this single-owned parcel. There is OST to the south and OST to the west. Is the development site in this particular instance larger than just this metes and bound parcel? The Planning Commission has the ability to determine that answer either way. The Applicant can appeal a negative decision by the Planning Commission. The overall intent of mixing office and research type uses with a hotel should be looked at. Is there support for this hotel?

Douglas Etkin addressed the Planning Commission. He introduced Robert Bednas. He said that he has developed the Telcom site and the Residence Inn when they were a new developer to Novi. He has also brought Ryder Logistics to Novi. Mr. Etkin noted that his company developed College Park in Livonia, a project that this Planning Commission has previously complimented.

Mr. Etkin just recently found out that Wixom was bidding against him for the Hilton franchise. If this project is approved at this meeting, Mr. Etkin will be sending a $60,000 check to Hilton the next day. He assured the Planning Commission that this will be a quality project. He understood that the Ordinance is meant to provide a means for hotels to complement uses in a larger development; they believe that this project is the third component of such a development.

Mr. Bednas explained that his company’s position is that a second hotel is fitting for this property. The Ordinance is vague enough that it does not specifically exclude a second hotel. They have the possibility and perhaps the entitlement to develop a hotel on this site.

More importantly, Mr. Bednas feels this is the highest and best use for this property. They have owned Timber Creek for seven years. This final site was originally approved for a flex-tech office building. Then, an opportunity with Sallie Mae came forward, which ultimately did not materialize. The market is not here for what they have been trying to get for this site. He stated that Telcom and Residence Inn both have a more aesthetic feel to them than the flex-tech office building would have had. There were some good designs proposed – typical offices with brick and glass.

Mr. Bednas said that the Hilton Garden Inn has quite a bit of fenestration, articulation and detail to its façade. This complements the Residence Inn very well. It adds interest to Cabaret Drive. From that perspective, this is the best use for the property. Mr. Bednas said that this is also a good complement for the Fountain Walk development.

Mr. Bednas explained that this use should not take business away from the Residence Inn, which is an extended stay facility. The Hilton is not – it is more intended for one- or two-night stays for business travelers and tourists. It is more likely to compete with Marriott Courtyard, for example.

Mr. Bednas said this project would bring more business to the City of Novi.

Mr. Bednas said that they were unaware that they had encroached upon the Conservation Easement land. The plan will be adjusted to the north and the sewer line will be relocated. This issue can be resolved very quickly.

There is also a loading zone issue in that its placement is located in front of the dumpster. That will be solved by moving the dumpster gates a couple of feet to the north. The loading area will be south of the gates. The island will be lost, but the solution works perfectly well. Hilton’s dumpster enclosure is a unique design. They also enclose their transformer and any other related mechanical equipment. It looks like part of the building. It is a ten-foot high wall.

The ZBA variance request for the side yard setback has been granted once before on the Sallie Mae site plan. It was an administrative accommodation because of what happened when the site was originally approved. The ZBA considered the project to have connecting units. The Residence Inn and Telcom plans came in instead of the Residence Inn and the project for this subject property. The condominium line was created in order to allow the financing of the Residence Inn. The violation of the side yard setback occurred as a technicality versus the Ordinance. Mr. Bednas was confident that they can regain the previous variance granted.

Mr. Bednas discussed the landscaping. He can relocate the street trees back onto the site, as required by the Ordinance. He said he could accommodate another island because he has excess parking spaces on the site. This would break up the nineteen spaces in a row. He said there was a misunderstanding regarding the selection of trees for the project. The Applicant will redesign the site using canopy trees, but Mr. Bednas did ask that the Planning Commission consider allowing them to use some undercanopy and evergreen trees. He asked that the Planning Commission allow his landscape architect to work with the City on an acceptable design using some alternative plant materials.

Mr. Bednas also requested the berm waiver for three reasons. The site’s elevation is different from Cabaret Drive. There is a 2.5 foot differential on the north end driveway. The measurement may be as big as seven feet on the south side. This creates a "natural berm" in the area. In the north the area is so narrow it would require a retaining wall rather than a berm. This would detract from the more natural design of the area. The landscape plan shows so much planting between the sidewalk and curb, a natural screening is being accomplished by the plant material.

Mr. Bednas said they could comply with the rest of the review requests. They want a partial waiver for the berm. They would like to leave the topography as is. They want to continue working on the tree list with the City.

Chair Cassis asked if the Applicant would consider a mixture of a wall and landscaping for the berm issue. Mr. Bednas said that the area has slopes so the viewshed will include street trees, a wall and a berm. He said that is not want they envision for their plan, but if that’s what the City wants they will comply. Their preference is not to design the area as such.

Member Pehrson asked Landscape Architect David Beschke to comment on the tree issue. Mr. Beschke said that the Ordinance requires canopy trees for the parking lot and the perimeter. 35 of the 67 trees on their plan are not correct. The Applicant will put in more canopy trees. With a building and parking lot of this size, the canopy trees are a better option. He was glad that the Applicant said he would comply. The street trees placement and the addition of the parking lot island to break up the 19 spaces are also items with which the Applicant said he would comply.

Mr. Beschke asked the Applicant for clarification of the berm, as it is stated as "existing" on the plan. He now understood that if the parking lot is going to stay at this level, it does make sense to waive the berm. As long as the intent is maintained – a minimum three-foot change in the elevation between the street and the parking - Mr. Beschke said he would support such a waiver request.

Member Pehrson asked whether Mr. Schmitt could explain the limitation on the number of hotels. Mr. Schmitt responded that the intent of the language and the reference to other sections in the Ordinance indicates that the intent of the District is for high-tech uses. Nonetheless, certain types of hotels were expected to be allowed. The Planning Department has discussed this issue internally, and there is a difference of opinion amongst the planners about the intent of the language. The concern is not so much that there is an issue with the "development site." That is of some concern, but the Planning Department is not as worried by that because it is still covered by the same Master Deed. That is a fair assessment of the situation. Mr. Schmitt thought that the concern was, at least from his perspective in reviewing the plan, there are three units, one being a 37,000 square foot office being and another being an extended stay hotel, is it therefore acceptable that the third plan comes in as a hotel as well? He didn’t disagree with the "development site" comments. His concern was whether this plan meets the intent of the district. The Planning Commission should discuss this issue. This is a unique case and Mr. Schmitt wasn’t worried about setting a precedent because office districts tend to come in with a master plan view. This plan has changed a couple of times, which is what causes the heartburn.

Member Pehrson was concerned about the precedence issue. He said that some of the Ordinance language represents the time and place in which the language was conceived. In other words, things change and the City doesn’t keep pace with its Ordinance language. Mr. Schmitt didn’t think that anything had changed regarding the OST District that would make this provision obsolete.

Mr. Schultz added that this particular condominium includes one office building and potentially two hotels. The only way that he felt the Planning Commission could find that the subject hotel as designed is an integral part of an overall design of an OST District development is to view not just this property but the area generally. His earlier comment was meant to convey that if the Planning Commission looks at this complex only, then their answer would have to be no. If the Planning Commission chooses to look at the situation in a broader manner, then the answer could be yes. Member Pehrson was looking at the surrounding areas and he does look at it with a more general view. His interpretation is that this is a proper use for the site. He did not have a problem with this request.

Member Pehrson added that he was pleased that the Applicant has agreed to some the changes listed in the review letters. He supported the project.

Member Avdoulos dovetailed Member Pehrson’s comments. He chose to look at this area a bit further. He also acknowledged that hotels feed off of one another. He cited Doubletree and the Hotel Baronette as two more area hotels that play off of one another. He felt this use would work in conjunction with Fountain Walk. The Residence Inn is more of a long-stay use. This use is more transient. For the purpose of determining whether a second hotel in this development is appropriate, he felt that based on the activity in the surrounding areas, the use is appropriate. The Telecom building is a great anchor building. There are offices across the street. Twelve Mile is the strip for office buildings. Member Avdoulos said there is no ring road effect like Laurel Park. It can’t be extended further because of the expressway. He thought the use worked. He supported the request.

Member Avdoulos said that when an Applicant agrees to do whatever the review letters state, sometimes there are misunderstandings. Member Avdoulos was pleased that the clarifications have been made. He said the City expected the landscape architects to hash this landscape plan out. It will get cleaned up. The requirement for parking is 157 spaces and the hotel is proposing 180 spaces, so losing one space to an island is easily accomplished.

The loading area problem can be corrected. The Conservation Easement encroachment is correctable. Member Avdoulos asked about the sidewalk connections and a reference to an attached sketch that was not attached. He wondered about the grades for connection to Fountain Walk. Member Avdoulos asked whether cross-hatching would be added to Cabaret Drive. Mr. Bednas located the area where the walkway would be placed. There is an existing sidewalk, and Mr. Bednas located it on a map for the Planning Commission. A straightaway crossing was recommended by the Traffic Review but that request is a bit problematic because of the grade change. He felt this could be resolved by the time of Final Site Plan submittal. He stated that there are sidewalk deficiencies in the area. Member Avdoulos thought that it was very likely that a fair amount of pedestrian traffic will exist.

Member Avdoulos asked about the landscaping. Mr. Beschke said that once the Applicant adds the canopy trees back onto their site it will look attractive. They have met the landscaping numbers for screening and parking and the perimeter; they just need the appropriate plant materials.

Member Wrobel had no problem with a second hotel being on this site; he said it was more convenient for the traveler. Having gone to the Emagine theaters on a Saturday night, Member Wrobel has noticed how crowded their parking lot is. He was concerned for this Applicant that people would use his parking lot for the movie theater. He hoped that the landscaping and topography would discourage that, and he wished to make the Applicant aware of this possibility.

Member Burke supported the second hotel request. He spoke with Residence Inn and determined that they have few customers who come for one or two nights. Therefore, he did not see that the Hilton is "direct" competition. He would like to see something improved with the sidewalk design. He suggested using stairs to address the steep grade change. He would prefer to move the pedestrians away from the curb. This is a high-traffic area. From a safety standpoint, he would prefer the straightaway design using stairs, and a clearly marked walkway at Cabaret. Mr. Bednas said that they would work with the City on the design. The comment in their response letter was just that the issue was more complex than a simple statement. Member Burke said it would be a natural for the Hilton customer to walk to Fountain Walk. Perhaps the two sites could work on a safe sidewalk plan.

Mr. Bednas said that with his first leg of this development, they put in a sidewalk. At that time, he was very surprised that Fountain Walk was not required to put in a sidewalk as part of their construction. Maybe they argued that there was nothing to the west, but that is how it happened.

Mr. Bednas said that perhaps just getting a path into the parking lot would be helpful, as the lot becomes a somewhat safer haven in which to walk.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Chair Cassis said that the extended stay hotels down by the Haggerty Sheraton are working very well. Having hotels next to one another does not bother him.

Chair Cassis asked the Applicant to consider the Planning Commission’s comments. The safety comments regarding the sidewalk were critical. Chair Cassis noted that the Applicant has been very cooperative. This project will come out in very good shape.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Burke:

There were no Consent Agenda Removals.

The Planning Commission briefly discussed the City Council’s economic development goals, objectives and implementation strategies for 2007. Director of Planning Barbara McBeth said that the goals were developed by the Economic Development Corporation and City Administration. City Council reviewed and adopted the strategies in late 2006. One of the key recommendations is for the City to hire an Economic Development Manager.

Ms. McBeth said that City Council did not ask for any formal feedback, but Planning Commission comments are always welcomed by the City Council members.

Member Avdoulos said that the Planning Commission has met with developers to discuss the development process and therefore he found a lot of the information to be familiar. He said it was a good tool for the Planning Commission to keep in mind. Member Avdoulos was pleased to hear that the City was going to focus on the Economic Development position. He liked this condensed version of the City’s economic position. He appreciated all those who worked on the project.

Chair Cassis said that the last time the City had an Economic Development employee it was not successful. Chair Cassis did not think the City needed to fill this position. The Committee has many volunteers who are hungry to do the work without pay. At this point in time, Chair Cassis thought that the effort put forth by the Committee on the strategies is proof that they can do the work of this position. He felt that these volunteers could easily take on the role of marketing the City and he suggested the use of the computer to publicize further the virtues of this community. This would save the City money. He reiterated that this position did not work the last time, though it might work this time. He was impressed with the strategies.

Member Meyer read a paragraph from page two of the report, and he hoped that the goal remains that the City ensures the long-term financial viability of the City by attracting and retaining quality development. It is a goal of the Planning Commission, he said, to refine the Ordinance and hold to those Ordinances, to make the process more user-friendly for developers. This will continue to make this Community more durable.

Member Meyer said that the character of the buildings is so important. He hoped that the City remains committed to requiring long-lasting buildings. His comments reflected his agreement with Member Avdoulos’ earlier comments about the importance of building design. Chair Cassis added that Member Avdoulos’ input has been instrumental in helping to improve the Planning Commission review process.

Chair Cassis said he agrees that more attention must be given to bringing this City a stronger tax base. However, the City should not forget that the state is in an economic downturn. At times, there may be a need for an Economic Coordinator, but if the economic conditions are not present, the City may be overspending and getting a minimal return on their investment. Chair Cassis hoped that Lansing was listening, and that is where the push should be first: Finding solutions for the economic malaise and reviving Michigan. The economic resources in this state are unbelievable. Without any question, they are unmatchable by any other state. This state has the resources and the people and the schools and the hospitals and the skills. But, the state needs an economic boost and must come up with a more creative and friendly atmosphere in the tax situation. This will help a lot.

Member Lynch said if there was an individual who could lower the City’s taxes by generating more economic development, he had no problem with hiring that person. His suspicion is that another staff member will be hired but their hands will be tied and the burden is then on the taxpayers’ shoulders. He would support hiring a person who could generate more revenue for the City. He just didn’t see this happening.

The Implementation Committee will meet on January 16, 2007 at 6:30 PM. The Committees all need to get their budget requests in to Ms. McBeth by the end of the month.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Moved by Member Pehrson,

The meeting adjourned at 9:44 PM.

MON 01/22/07 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 01/24/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 02/05/07 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 02/14/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 02/19/07 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

MON 02/20/07 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 02/28/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

Transcribed by Jane L. Schimpf, February 7, 2007 Signature on File

Date Approved: February 14, 2007 Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date