The meeting was called to order at or about 7:00 PM.

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

Absent: Member Michael Meyer (excused)

Also Present: Barbara McBeth, Deputy Director of Community Development; Tim Schmitt, Planner; Mark Spencer, Planner; Kristen Kapelanski, Planner; Ben Croy, Engineer; David Beschke, Landscape Architect; Rob Hayes, City Engineer; Mike McLaren, EIT; Tom Schultz, City Attorney; John Freeland, Wetland Consultant; Alan Hall, Façade Consultant

Member Gutman 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 were no Committee Reports.

Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth told the Planning Commission that the Budget Committee met and the budget will be presented to the Planning Commission at the next meeting.

City Engineer Rob Hayes introduced Mike McLaren, explaining that the Sikich Company’s PRIDE Report suggested that the City hire an Engineer in Training. Mike comes from the construction industry. He graduated from Michigan Tech with a degree in Civil Engineering.

Consideration of the request of Novi Meadow, LLC, for Final Site Plan Extension approval. The subject property is located in Section 14, west of Meadowbrook Road between I-96 and Twelve Mile, in the OST, Planned Office Service Technology District. The entire site is 5.372 acres and the Applicant is proposing to construct a 21,840 square foot office building.

Consideration of the request of Rick Tatro of Aprecis Group, Inc., for Final Site Plan Extension approval. The subject property is located in Section 3, south of South Lake Drive on the south side of Pembine Road between Buffington and Henning Roads, in the R-4, One-family Residential District. The subject property is approximately 8.93 acres.

Moved by seconded by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

The Public Hearing was opened for the Planning Commission’s review of the 2007-2013 Capital Improvement Program.

Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth explained that this annual review of the CIP takes place with two Planning Commission members and two City Council members. The Committee reviewed the CIP and Member Lynch was available at the meeting to discuss the projects further.

Member Lynch said the Committee met on February 14, 2007 with Kathy Smith-Roy and Ms. McBeth. The other Planning Commission members included Member Gutman and Member Burke. There were some challenging items on the list, but removing subjectivity from the process is a difficult one. This year the strategy employed taking a more objective look at the City’s needs. Data was presented for substantiation. The CIP projects look reasonable.

Member Lynch said that there will be work performed on the Wixom Road/I-96 interchange, which will definitely impact what the City does on Beck Road. The recommendation Member Lynch put forth was to ensure the Beck Road is not being worked on at the same time that the Wixom Road construction is underway.

Moved by Member Lynch, seconded by Member Pehrson:

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

Member Avdoulos asked whether any of the items’ ordering was shifted upon review of the Committee. Member Lynch said that for his part, he read the stormwater information thoroughly. At their meetings, he took the analyses provided by the City Staff under consideration. He was satisfied that the Staff completed adequate due diligence in prioritizing the projects. He would prefer to defer to the Staff to explain any of the ordering. They certainly know the City and its needs better than he.

One weakness Member Lynch noted was that the CIP is a static document and does not take into account any kind of risk assessment for changes to the Master Plan. a risk assessment was never performed. For example, if the zoning changes on a site or parkland is removed, how will that affect the City? Changing these things creates risks. Infrastructure might have to be upgraded. The CIP is based on existing conditions.

Member Avdoulos explained how in the past some items that related to safety were moved ahead in the project line-up. For instance, the chip seal program on dirt roads was upgraded on the list because the effort provided safety for the school buses.

Member Lynch said his concern through the process was that logic was applied to prioritizing the projects.

Chair Cassis said that the City Council is the political arm of the City and the Planning Commission is only going to have a voice. City Council members are the people who set the priorities. He cited a recent City Council discussion on sidewalks that was political in nature. He felt there was only a certain limit to which the Planning Commission can affect change on the CIP. Member Lynch reiterated that he did feel that the program was designed in a logical manner.

City Attorney Tom Schultz said that the CIP is a planning document and the Planning Commission approves and adopts this plan for public improvements. There is heavy input from Staff. From the Planning Commission’s approved CIP, each individual project goes before City Council for funding approval. These projects may or may not get funded in the order they are listed in the plan. The Planning Statute mandates that the Planning Commission approve the CIP.

Ms. McBeth added that the Engineering Department, the Parks, Recreation and Forestry Department, and the Sidewalk Prioritization Analysis were all elements used in the decision making process.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Amson Dembs Development for Preliminary Site Plan, Woodland Permit, Stormwater Management Plan, and Special Land Use approval. The subject property is located in Section 4, at the northwest corner of Cartier and Hudson Drive, in the I-1, Light Industrial District. The subject property is approximately 2.77 acres. The Applicant is proposing a 40,013 sq. ft. speculative light industrial warehouse building.

Planner Mark Spencer described the project located on the northwest corner of Cartier and Hudson drives in the northwest corner of Beck North Corporate Park Phase 2 in Section 4 of the City. It is zoned I-1 and master planned for Light Industrial. To the north is a fifty-foot strip of City-owned vacant land and further north and northeast are Portsmouth Place and Spring Arbor Apartments, zoned low density Multiple Family Residential and master planned for Multiple Family Residential. To the east and southeast is vacant land in Beck North Corporate Park, zoned I-1 and master planned for Light Industrial. To the south is vacant land in Beck North Corporate Park that is planned for a speculative industrial/warehouse building, also zoned I-1 and master planned for Light Industrial. To the west are light industrial buildings in City of Wixom, zoned M-1 (Manufacturing) and master planned for Light Industrial.

The site contains medium cover woodlands and a natural features habitat area. There are no wetlands.

The proposal is on Unit 12 and a portion of Unit 13 in Phase 2 of the site condominium Beck North Corporate Park. The roads and utilities for the Corporate Park were approved with conservation easements on some wetland and woodland areas with the understanding that these issues would also be addressed on each site at the time of Preliminary Site Plan application.

The Preliminary Site Plan meets most of the site plan requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed building is about 26.5 feet tall with six-foot tall HVAC equipment. A 25-foot building and five-foot appurtenances are the maximum permitted when the site is adjacent to a residential district. The Applicant was asked to reduce the height of the building to 25 feet or less and reduce the height of roof top appurtenances to five feet or less above the roof top but they have indicated they will seek a ZBA Variance on both matters.

When industrial uses are located in the I-1 District adjacent to residential districts, overhead doors are not permitted to face the residential district. One overhead door is proposed on the north building elevation and it is at 45 degrees to the residential district. The Applicant was asked to remove the overhead door or redesign the building so no overhead door faces the adjoining residential district. The Applicant has indicated they will pursue a ZBA Variance to permit the door.

Light industrial uses are permitted on parcels in the I-1 District when adjacent to residential districts subject to meeting the requirements of Section 2516.2(c). Special Land Uses require the submittal of a noise analysis and the Planning Commission making findings that the use is acceptable. A noise analysis was submitted after the Planning Review was written; the analysis shows the proposed use will comply with the requirements of the Ordinance.

The Planning Commission should consider the several factors for the Special Land Use request. Will it be detrimental to existing thoroughfares or the capabilities of public services and facilities? It is compatible with the natural features and characteristics of the land and adjacent uses of land? Is the use consistent with the goals, objectives and recommendations of the City’s Master Plan for Land Use? Will the use promote the use of land in a socially and economically desirable manner? Is the use in harmony with the purposes and conforms to the applicable site design regulations of the zoning district in which it is located?

Most of the woodlands on the site will be removed. The Applicant will be required to provide 334 replacement trees and most of them will be placed on the site. The City’s Woodland Consultant has expressed concern with the Applicant’s proposal to place some of the trees off-site on private property. The Consultant recommends that if off-site trees are planted elsewhere, their location must be approved by the City’s Forester and placed in a Conservation Easement with a legal mechanism to protect them. The City’s Woodland Consultant can support approval of the Woodland Permit if these issues are adequately addressed and the Applicant has indicated that they will work these issues out to the Consultant’s satisfaction.

The City’s Landscape Architect recommends approval subject to a Planning Commission Waiver of the berm required along the north property line since the site is adjacent to a residential district. This Waiver is appropriate due to the existence of a fifty-foot landscape strip and about 500 feet of adjacent protected woodland. The berm is also required to screen the loading dock and this proposal would also require a waiver.

The City’s Traffic and Façade Consultants and Engineer Review all recommend approval subject to minor corrections to be made on the Final Site Plan submittal.

Chair Cassis confirmed that the adjacency to residential is the Multiple Family Residential previously mentioned. Mr. Spencer said that there is a fifty-foot buffer between the site and the Multiple Family Residential. Mr. Spencer showed the 2005 aerial photo and noted the woodland in the area. The opacity requirements are met by the existing vegetation.

Mr. Spencer clarified for Chair Cassis that the Applicant will have to go to the ZBA for building height variances and the loading dock issue.

Larry Stoby from Amson Dembs addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of the Applicant. He offered to answer any questions. He said that the comments from the reviews would be answered on the next site plan submittal.

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

Member Pehrson asked about the replacement trees. Mr. Spencer told the Planning Commission that in certain instances the Applicant has been able to place the trees in common areas throughout the park. He didn’t think they had allowed them to place them on individual lots. That is a real concern – if the trees are allowed to be placed on specific lots, control is lost on managing the trees.

Member Pehrson asked City Attorney Tom Schultz whether legal language can protect the trees in perpetuity. Mr. Schultz said it could be made a requirement that the trees be placed in a Conservation Easement. The concern is the inadvertent removal of those trees in the future.

Member Pehrson said this building is another example of how this Applicant brings forward his best work. The plan looks great from the standpoint from what he is trying to do. This is probably the Amson Dembs plan with the most pending issues regarding ZBA variances and the like. He still felt that the variances should be given a positive recommendation. He had no issue with the building height issue. The ZBA variance for the overhead door seemed reasonable since the building is quite a distance away from the residential. The opacity is good. There is no sense in disturbing what vegetation is already in place. He was in favor of granting that waiver.

Member Pehrson asked whether the request for pine trees was to balance out the berm issue. Landscape Architect David Beschke responded that the property drops to the residential parking lot. That effectively creates a good berm. The pines were to add seasonal variation and ensure the opacity.

Mr. Stoby told Member Pehrson said that Amson Dembs would probably address the loading zone area until a tenant is found for the building. He did not believe that they would be starting this building immediately. They still have time to decide how to address that issue.

Member Pehrson felt the Applicant met the criteria for the Special Land Use.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

Member Avdoulos wanted to ensure that the Applicant would work with the recommendations made by the Woodland Consultant regarding the replacement trees. When the entire park was approved, it was very emotional on the part of the Bristol Corners residents as it related to the trees. When an industrial park roadway is approved, there is no way to tell how the sites will disrupt the land. The Applicant is proposing to remove 96% of the trees on a property to make room for a building, whereas there is going to be a project down the line that may only disrupt one- or two-percent of a site’s trees. This area was very sensitive. The light grey on the shown plan was also in controversy because the trees were cut and he did not know if it was done legally. The owner said he was farming the property, but Member Avdoulos did not think that was the case. There has been a lot of emotion associated with this property. He had no issue with Amson Dembs or the project, but he was concerned about the trees and landscaping and natural features. In the future, Bristol Corners residents are going to become more vocal when the sites near their homes are proposed for development. He was sure that this Applicant would work with the City.

Mr. Stoby said it was interesting to note that small park settings have already been proposed for the park, or will be in the future. Amson Dembs is interested in pursuing that. There are hardy blue spruce trees in place to buffer the residential. Amson Dembs will more than likely take the recommendations of the City officials to either place more trees in the fifty-foot area and/or try to set aside these park areas. Member Avdoulos said that displayed a spirit of cooperation. Mr. Stoby said they would like to see the investment be considered as an enhancement.

Member Avdoulos said it is a nice selling point to the park, providing an open area that has something more to it than just open space.

Chair Cassis supported the comments made by Member Avdoulos. The Planning Commission knows that the Applicant builds good buildings, they bring in tenants and jobs. The Planning Commission also expects cooperation and that the Applicant will go a bit farther to augment the woodland situation. It would serve them well. It will enrich the campus.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Tammy S. Shire of Erickson Retirement Communities for revised Wetland Permit approval. The subject property is located in Section 1, north of Thirteen Mile, east of Meadowbrook Road, in the RM-1, Low Density, Low Rise Multiple-family Residential District. The Applicant is proposing additional temporary impacts to the City regulated wetlands.

Planner Tim Schmitt described the 100-acre Fox Run site. To the west is a manufactured home community and to the east are Lennox Park and Brightmoor Christian Church. To the south is vacant land. To the north is common area in Maples Place and Haverhill Farms. Mr. Schmitt showed which of the Fox Run buildings are already built.

There is a preserved wetland between the second community building and Residential Building 2.1. There are pedestrian bridges linking the buildings, which is one of the hallmarks of the Fox Run development design. One such connection placed a pier in the wetland on the original wetland permit. The Applicant did further engineering on the site, and found that the soils would not support the pier. Their proposed change essentially involves driving caissons in order to build the piers. This requires a fairly large piece of machinery. There are also steep slopes in the area. The Applicant contacted the City for assistance.

This request is to fill a substantial portion of the wetland temporarily with rock to create a land bridge. This will allow the large drilling machines and equipment to get to the middle two piers. The Wetland Consultant is available to discuss this matter with the Planning Commission. The City would like this work to be completed by May 1, 2007. The Applicant would begin work on the upcoming Monday if it receives the Planning Commission’s approval. Once construction is done, the machinery will be removed as will the stones. The wetland will then be restored. One or two woodland trees may exist that are in the way and will have to be removed. If so, a revised Woodland Permit will be issued for those trees. Again this is a temporary issue.

Peter Albertson of NSA addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of Fox Run. First, Mr. Albertson said that the trees are no longer in place as they blew down last year. He thought their tree survey was appropriate for the site. He offered to answer any questions.

Chair Cassis opened the floor for comment. No one wished to speak. He asked Member Pehrson to read the correspondence into the record:

Thadeus Stojek, 41120 Fox Run: Approved of project

Lee Hilung, 41150 Fox Run: Approved of project.

Marilynn Adams, 41360 Fox Run: Approved of project.

Dorothy Pitt, 41360 Fox Run: Objected because she didn’t want the area destroyed on account of the birds.

Nancy Forsberg, 41120 Fox Run: Approved because it is necessary to complete the covered connection.

Joan E. Gould, 41130 Fox Run: Objected because the wetlands are part of the natural habitat.

Jeanne and Frank Begue, 41360 Fox Run: Wants wetlands to remain as wetlands.

Virginia Roscoe, 41120 Fox Run: Approved so that the connection can be made.

Mary F. Radlicki, 41120 Rox Run: Approved of the project.

Joan Lee, 41140 Fox Run: Approved as it will facilitate indoor walking.

Harry Lichthardt, 41360 Fox Run: Approved for the corridor connection.

Dora Pappa, 41360 Fox Run: Thought it would be an improvement.

Nancy Hunt, 41130 Fox Run: Approved of the project.

Bettie Webb, 41649 Sleepy Hollow Drive: Objected because she wanted the wetlands to remain intact.

Eiji Supr, 41786 Brownstone Drive: Approved of the plan.

Florence McDougall, 41140 Fox Run: Approved of the plan.

Rick Montes, 41410 Cornell: Objected because he paid a premium to live near the wetlands.

Marion Hammond, 41130 Fox Run: Approved of the plan.

Eva Boicourt, 41110 Fox Run: Thought revision was necessary for connecting bridge.

Delores Roman, 41360 Fox Run: Approved for the continuity the plan brings.

Ralph and Barbara Rays, 41130 Fox Run: Approved of the plan.

Audrey Becker, 41360 Fox Run: Supported the minor change.

Patricia Perry, 41120 Fox Run: Approved for the improved quality of life it will bring.

Joyce Rieger, 31120 Columbia: Objected to disturbing the wetlands.

Robert and Charlotte Wagner, 41110 Fox Run: Confident the Applicant will improve the land.

Mr. Schmitt noted for the record that there were countless Public Hearing notices returned by the post office with a notation that they were undeliverable. He suggested that anyone who thought they should have received a notice but didn’t should contact the Community Development Department.

Member Gutman confirmed with Mr. Schmitt that they supported the proposal. Mr. Schmitt said that the hardest part of the project is ensuring the remediation is acceptable. Given the amount of construction that occurs at Fox Run, this effort will be closely watched.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Lynch:

Member Wrobel asked what the timeframe would be for the wetland to return to its current condition. Dr. John Freeland, the Wetland Consultant, understood that their full-time landscape crew has been asked to replant the area by May 1, so that foliage has the chance to fill out early on in the growing season. Any trees that are removed will be replaced with new trees. The intention is to make the landscaping nice. This will be heavily monitored. The area should green up well within the growing season.

Member Avdoulos asked whether May 1 was an acceptable date. Mr. Albertson did not think that it was a realistic goal. He hoped that the Planning Commission would just allow the work to be done as quickly as possible. It will be done by the opening of the community building by August 1. The intent is to begin work within the week of the authorization from the Planning Commission. There will be some related work near the perimeter of the bridge.

Mr. Albertson said that it would be a reasonable approach to remove the rocks after the bridge work is done, and then the planting can take place. Member Avdoulos understood the project as he has worked on projects similar to this. Member Avdoulos said that the Applicant is basically limiting himself to March and April, without knowing what the weather will be or the condition of the land. He hoped that the developer worked diligently and that the City stayed on top of this project. He confirmed that the Applicant was confident with the caisson depth that they are proposing. Mr. Albertson said that J.M. Olson was the contractor on this project was waiting in the wings for approval so that the project can begin.

Member Avdoulos noted the various companies involved in this project and felt their reputations were commendable. Member Avdoulos supported the motion.

Chair Cassis said Novi was proud to have this project. The campus is as lovely as it can be. He said this request is another example of the respect Erickson has for the land. Mr. Schmitt told Chair Cassis that the construction engineers, Building Department, and the Environmental Consultant would all be on-site during the completion of this project. Mr. Schmitt himself occasionally visits the site to see the progress being made. Civil Engineer Ben Croy said that he, too, would be on site, as would his engineering inspectors.

Consideration of the request of Sami Valija of JMS Construction for a Section 9 Waiver. The subject property is located in Section 23, north of Grand River Avenue, east of Novi Road, in the B-3, General Business District. The subject property is 5.85 acres and the Applicant is proposing to modify the façade of the existing Italian Epicure Restaurant.

Planner Tim Schmitt described the project for the Planning Commission. To the east is Gateway Village. To the south is Brooktown and Marty Feldman Chevrolet. To the east is Thomasville Shopping Center. To the north is a cell tower.

The easternmost building is the topic for consideration. There is a gazebo that splits the two buildings. Mr. Schmitt showed the Planning Commission the location of the building that was recently harmed by fire. This part of the building has been rebuilt. The building has also been re-roofed.

The Applicant proposes to make changes to the façade. The current building has a green awning on the front with several French accents. The Applicant is now proposing to remove the siding and use different types of material, e.g., stucco and stone, and they would like to paint the roof a terracotta color.

Mr. Schmitt showed a rendering that put the two buildings and the gazebo into context with one another. The Façade Consultant has not recommended approval of this Waiver.

Mr. Schmitt said that this building was built before the City had a Façade Ordinance. Therefore, the building is non-conforming. The Ordinance calls for the building to be brought up to standards, which would mean this building requires 30% brick. The Applicant is not proposing to use brick. The Planning Department does not believe that using 30% brick makes any sense.

The green awning will be removed. The Applicant is proposing to modify only two sides of the building. The Planning Department would like to make the Planning Commission aware of the color of the building – it will match the shopping center somewhat – and the color of the roof – terracotta.

The existing shopping flows as one. This is the only shopping center in Novi that has a certain amount of panache – it was designed with a theme. That’s generally the issue that the Planning Department has. The Planning Department has met with the Applicant to discuss this proposal. The Applicant is really trying to make this restaurant a flagship of their chain. They want to get away from the Italian/French building. The Applicant is looking to set themselves apart from the rest of the center.

The Planning Commission is asked to grant or deny the Section 9 Façade Waiver. The Applicant is not making modifications to the site plan. The archistone that the Applicant is proposing to use is very nice but not an approved material.

Kaya Salwin, in-house counsel for the Applicant, addressed the Planning Commission. She introduced the marketing officer, architect, and Mezza owner. She said that this façade is their concept to be used nationwide.

Cam Cummings, Marketing Officer, showed a powerpoint presentation. They designed this building starting about three years ago. They too, hope to bring more jobs to the Detroit area. He said that the recent trend has been to worry about obesity and fast food. This is a sit-down dining with healthful cuisine. Mediterranean is the healthiest food – it uses fresh meat, a lot of vegetables, garlic and olive oil. Historically, one of the ways that Mediterranean wealth was known was by, among other things, the amount of spices that people owned. Therefore, their concept is to bring "spices" into their design.

They also like the aspect of family-style dining. By providing this type of service, customers will be able to sample different items that they might not necessarily order on their own. Their menu is eclectic and includes food from the entire region.

They will use the colors of the Mediterranean. Crystal blue will be used. Terracotta and the earth tones will be used. Fresh food will be used. The mapping area indicates that all countries will be represented – Lebanese, Moroccan, Spanish, etc. Their apparel will emulate the region.

Mr. Cummings said that together the owners have over seventy years in the restaurant business. This Novi restaurant is their pilot location. They have pegged another seventeen sites in Metro Detroit/northern Ohio. There are four locations in Chicago. They are backed by investors. They would like to have 20-25 stores open within three years. Their intent is to take their customers on a culinary journey.

Nidal Arzouni is the architect and interior designer for this restaurant. During his research, he determined that most Mediterranean buildings were made of stone and had terracotta for the roofs. There were large archways at the doors and at other places.

Mr. Arzouni said that the canopy will be removed from the south façade. Their entrance will have a large arch, and an arch will also be on the east elevation. The arches will be built from two colors of stone. Archistone is a new material made from crushed limestone. It was developed in 1960 in Europe. It was originally used to restore historical buildings. Now is it is used everywhere. It is very strong. It will be used on the lower part of the building. It will be used along the edges and for the arches.

The front elevation will be colored with a terracotta color. Currently the building has cedar shingles. The main arch will have a crown moulding that matches the details of the building. They might paint the gazebo shingles terracotta, or they might just remove it.

Alan Hall, Façade Consultant, addressed the Planning Commission. He considered this site as a community site – one site – and the buildings are spatially arranged such that there is an architectural uniqueness to them. One side of the site has a country/Victorian flair. The existing restaurant has a French flavor. These are not examples of general architecture. They each provide a strong statement. One of the problems with the site is that the site is non-conforming. Basically none of the materials, save the windows, are allowed. The Ordinance requires the building to be brought into conformance, which includes the building being 30% brick. This isn’t practical, and it would make the architecture even more different from the community in which it sits. Any design would be a compromise.

Mr. Hall said that if the Planning Commission denies this request, he would recommend that the buildings return to the community setting – the buildings should interact and play together, like a shopping center. If this request is approved, there will be a spatial and architectural difference. The restaurant will have a character; the shopping center will have a character. The question would be, how do these two flairs interact with one another? He noted that the buildings do not touch one another. Mr. Hall also said that there is amphitheater created by one of the walls in the area of the gazebo. Spatially, then, the buildings are connected. From the road, the buildings appear to be connected. His problem with this request is both architectural and spatial. The design should not interrupt what was originally intended for the site, and should not affect the integrity of the site.

Member Wrobel asked about the west elevation. Mr. Schmitt said that the north and west sides were not proposed for modification. The west side has a porch and a greenhouse-type design – a lot of glass. The north backs up to additional parking. The Applicant has mentioned doing a complete overhaul, though this is not in the cards at this time.

Member Wrobel thought that would look funny, if the building has two contrasting styles. The Grand River drivers will see the old façade and the new façade.

Member Wrobel asked what the determining factor is for the gazebo’s fate. Ms. Salwin said that this is a leased site. The shopping center owner supports this façade change, but he hasn’t given them any authorization to do much of anything with it. The Applicant has not asked to tear it down. They have asked if they can match it to their building.

Mr. Schmitt said that the gazebo acts as a link between the two buildings. The Planning Department suggested that the Applicant bring up the request to tear the gazebo down. There is no approval for this at this time.

Member Wrobel liked the plaza, and thought it was even nicer after the rebuild. He said the restaurant – the old Saratoga Trunk building, is ugly. It fits and yet it doesn’t fit. This concept could be an improvement, but at this time Member Wrobel was unsold on it. He wished to hear the other Planning Commissioner comments.

Member Lipski said that if the issues that surface become more preferential than Ordinance-based, the Planning Commission should be careful to watch the rationale behind their decision making process. He did not think that the building appeared to be in good shape or attractive. From his personal perspective, the proposal is somewhat of an improvement and it would offer some variety to the location. That said, Member Lipski said that the Section 9 Waiver should be dealt with rather than the marketing of the site.

Member Lipski said the renderings suggest that the continuity of the site will be lost with this concept, though this wasn’t the first place in the City where a shopping district is not identical in structure.

Member Lipski said there seemed to be an issue with the term "stucco." He thought it would behoove the Applicant if this material that they are proposing was more clearly defined, as "stucco" is considered somewhat of an inferior product.

Mr. Schmitt said that the Section 9 Waiver could be considered a two-part proposal. The consensus on the first issue is that it doesn’t make sense to make the Applicant brick the building. Therefore, the 30% brick requirement for Region 1 is not really an issue. The second part of the question is whether the other materials should be permitted and, for those materials deemed acceptable, should they be allowed at a ratio greater than stated in the Ordinance? This is truly a design motif that was not contemplated under the Ordinance.

Member Lipski asked whether the Planning Department saw an architectural soundness problem based on the proposed percentages. Mr. Schmitt felt it was just a percentage issue. This is Region 1, and the building is right on Grand River, and the Planning Department has always defended this region.

Member Lipski thought the proposal was an improvement over the existing façade. It will add variety to the strip. He did not think the change was dramatically different. The preferential issue was not necessarily in the Planning Commission’s province, from Member Lipski’s standpoint. If the Section 9 Waiver is appropriate, then Member Lipski would approve the proposal.

Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth said the standards of the Ordinance allow that if the combination of materials and colors proposed are keeping with the intent of the section, but may differ from the strict application of the Ordinance, the Planning Commission can grant the waiver. If the combination enhances the building concept, the waiver can be considered.

Member Burke said that the one end of this center was country/Victorian and the other end was French/Italian, so he said that there are already two themes in place as it is. Member Burke confirmed that the cedar shingles would be washed and then painted.

Member Burke thought that the gazebo helped to pull the two pieces together. He didn’t think anyone would argue that this entire site is just one piece. There are two specific buildings. The gazebo is nice for the linear tie. The site has been a bit of an eyesore recently, and the use of the building has been varied over the years. He liked the proposal as it gave the building an identity. He reiterated that the building is currently non-compliant. He saw this as an improvement and supported the Applicant’s request.

Member Pehrson asked about the re-build after the fire. Did it meet the intent of the code? Mr. Schmitt said that the jewelry store and adjacent space did not comprise more than 50% of the building; therefore, they were allowed to rebuild exactly the same as they were once designed. The exception was that they did bring their handicapped parking spaces up to 2003 Michigan Barrier Free standards. The roof is now different on the new building and cannot be painted to match the restaurant.

Member Pehrson thought that the proposal was more current than what currently exists. He wished to bring the Façade Ordinance up to current standards. He said that the City is using this opportunity to help this Applicant make their location here in Novi successful. This building should be given every opportunity to be their flagship. Member Pehrson thought the complete package that this Applicant is trying to achieve is for the betterment of the community.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Lipski:

Member Avdoulos confirmed that the Applicant has been in the building for five months. Ms. Salwin said that they have created the corporate identity through their marketing group. There are seven sites that should be open within the next six months. This is the beginning of what all of their stores will look like. The business is just starting. They hope to have a grand opening once the façade is complete. They will have a media campaign. This will be a large-brand restaurant. Member Avdoulos thought their logo is good and their sign has a good graphic. The food is primary; the building is secondary.

Member Avdoulos liked the shopping center building. He said that people may not like the existing restaurant façade because it has "too much makeup." If this building was cleaned up, it would tie into the shopping center.

Member Avdoulos’ concern was that the materials were non-conforming and only half of the building was proposed for updating. When the Applicant wishes to update the other two sides, he will have to return to the Planning Commission for another waiver. He would approve of this request if all sides were updated.

Member Avdoulos was also struggling with the various parts of this puzzle. There is a French mansard roof. He wasn’t that comfortable with painting (staining) existing shingles. Typically a Mediterranean building would have clay tiles.

Member Avdoulos said that the entry piece was something he wanted to see, but he didn’t necessarily agree with the Applicant’s placement of crown moulding on top. It takes the historical image and makes the elements fight against one another. He wished to see more articulation on that idea.

The glass tile shown with blues – Member Avdoulos would like to see that introduced in the archway on two particular walls. It will clean up the monument so that the emphasis is there rather than the main building. He asked about the columns on the end. He thought that the columns should be removed. The Applicant should continue around the corner with the stucco and the groove lines that are being proposed. He also thought the framing around the windows were out of proportion.

Member Avdoulos gave these recommendations because there is large development going in across the street, there is a quaint center next door, there is Gateway down the road. He wanted to make sure that the quality and design worked well with the area. He wanted the building to complement the other buildings. He had no problem with the materials. He found that the stucco was really an EIFS material. He said the installation will be substraight, then the insulation and then the EIFS will be applied. That will create the joints. The trim will be left in, and the trim is wood. They will be painted.

Member Avdoulos said he had to be comfortable with the design before he could support it. He thought that this proposal was heading in the right direction. He liked the idea of clay tile for the roof. He said that the stone entry ways have articulation, but he was worried about a flat expansive of stucco without joints being designed instead. The latter has no appeal. He wanted to ensure that the entries were enhanced.

Member Avdoulos was at first uncomfortable with the design because of the pointed arch, the segmented arch and then the rounded arch. However, he reviewed his library contents and found that this is appropriate, since the Mediterranean is a location that was built over a period of time and could be logically designed in such a fashion. He said that the Applicant should wait until the very last thing to stain the shingles, to determine if it was really necessary. It could end up not being a good component of the design. The idea is to have new businesses succeed. Whatever is done must be done with high quality.

Member Avdoulos felt that the Waiver had to be for the entire building. He didn’t want to see the Applicant complete only two of the four sides of the building. Member Avdoulos really liked the logo, but he didn’t know if it was necessary to add it to the arch of the entry. Let the building do what it does.

Mr. Schmitt said that the minutes of this meeting will be forwarded to the Applicant for their consideration. Ultimately, the Planning Department will ask the Applicant to get his building plans ready. The crown moulding issue will be looked at. The Applicant will have to turn in stamping sets, so this approval wouldn’t be the last rendition of the plan.

Member Avdoulos reiterated that he didn’t want this waiver to be for just the front of the building. The rest of the sides need to be considered and calculated anyway. He wanted to make sure the Applicant was comfortable with the design.

City Attorney Tom Schultz said the motion on the floor is to approve the plan as it is depicted. If the Applicant says that he will work on some of the comments once the minutes are transcribed, then that becomes one of those things where the City relies on the Applicant’s good graces. If there are things that the Planning Commission wants changed from the plan that is before them tonight, those changes must be listed in the motion. Member Avdoulos said that he would recommend postponing the vote to provide the Applicant with time to address these items.

Member Lynch did not feel one way or the other on this request, but he did not want to set a precedent for the City.

Member Burke asked if the Applicant would do the other two sides of the building. The Applicant said they would but there are budget constraints. Ms. Salwin said that there are phases to their entire operation. They need to have this restaurant up and running smoothly as a condition for other sites to get their approvals. There are other buildings being proposed for retrofit as well. One location that will be done quickly is in West Bloomfield.

Member Burke asked if the Applicant would agree to finishing off the two sides. Chair Cassis interjected that the Applicant could minimally treat the east side of the building at a reasonable cost. The west side is all glass. Member Burke reiterated that it would be best for the Applicant to commit to the whole building so that they don’t have to come back to the Planning Commission for another approval, and the Planning Commission does not set a precedent for granting a Waiver on half of a building.

Ms. Salwin said that they would work with the City, acknowledging the limitations of their budget. The other sides don’t need as much work.

Member Burke asked whether the Applicant has spoken to their neighbors. Ms. Salwin said that the neighbors are customers. They support this request because they are realizing the increased traffic from the restaurant.

Member Avdoulos agreed that this approval is not about personal preferences. It is the Planning Commission’s role to ensure that the waiver is sound. He also said that new materials are being addressed with every new project.

Chair Cassis reminded the Planning Commission how the Bob Evans restaurant was not allowed to use the red wood on their façade. They had to design with red brick. Now the façade question is before this Planning Commission. He said they have been forward-looking. There are certain façade components that are coming aboard that look good and are keeping up with the times. With Bob Evans, the building was built from the ground up. This request is a retrofit. He said that previously themed-restaurants came into this building but did not make it. Now this Applicant comes forward and wants to create a Mediterranean theme for his restaurant. The Planning Commission must consider whether this building is part of the center and therefore must retain its theme. The Planning Commission must also consider whether this Mediterranean design should be approved over a design that might coordinate a little bit better with the center and would abide by the Façade Ordinance. Chair Cassis said that the Planning Commission must consider what must be done. It would be behoove the Applicant to consider some of the comments made at this meeting.

Chair Cassis did not think it was the Planning Commission’s purview to tell the Applicant to use specific design elements. If so, the approval becomes based on taste. The Applicant is spending a lot of money to improve the look of the place and attract more customers. In Chair Cassis’ opinion, the Applicant should update the east side at minimum. This would be a minimum expenditure. He did not have a problem with the roof becoming red. That is the look the Applicant is trying to achieve. He asked the Applicant if they would do the east side of the building. Ms. Salwin said that they would agree to do so. Mr. Schmitt clarified with the Applicant that the entire roof is being painted.

Mr. Schultz said that this is different and fun, since this is a section of the Ordinance that allows the Planning Commission to have a great discussion. If the requests by the Planning Commission have an architectural standard for its basis, then the motion really can say what the elements of the design can or cannot be. The last comments would be hard to formulate into a motion; the question becomes what can the City tell the Applicant that he has to do versus what the City is hoping the Applicant will do.

Mr. Schultz continued that it seems to be an issue that the Applicant only wants to update two sides of the building. He thought that the Applicant would state that he would incorporate some treatments into the other two sides of the building. The Planning Commission’s motion can even give the Applicant some time to do that.

Mr. Schultz said that if there are going to be changes on the east side of the building, which of Member Avdoulos’ comments were going to be cited in the Planning Commission’s request for this change?

Chair Cassis said he had not yet formulated his friendly amendment for the motion.

Member Lynch asked if this motion set a precedent. He wants to see this plan move forward and the Applicant succeed. At the same time, he didn’t want this request to set a precedent. Mr. Schultz said that this is an exercise of discretion. Every building is a little bit different. He said that this request will not have a binding effect on the City. He said it would be unusual for the Planning Commission to suggest the Applicant only update two of the four sides of the building. Theoretically, all four sides of the building can be seen.

Mr. Schmitt added to the discussion that the color board and sample board must be provided prior to the time of construction. He asked that this be added to the motion. The Applicant agreed to turn these items in.

Ms. Salwin did not think that the north side of the building is visible. Mr. Schmitt said that the west side is visible, but still, by only adding one more side the request is then for three of four sides.

Member Pehrson said that the Applicant is looking at making the change to two sides. He was trying to ascertain how long it would take for the Applicant to complete the whole building. Ms. Salwin said she could have the plans ready in two weeks, and completion within two months. Mr. Schmitt asked for clarification. When could all four sides be updated? Ms. Salwin said that she hoped the City would allow them to update the first two sides, and then within two months the third side could be done. The fourth side is glass. Chair Cassis thought that the north side is not even visible.

Member Pehrson said that he would like to rescind his motion and ask the Applicant to come back to the Planning Commission with a plan showing all four sides. Member Pehrson said that the Planning Commission has been designing this building for an hour, and he didn’t necessarily support this effort. Member Lipski would not rescind this seconding of the motion.

Mr. Schultz said that the Planning Commission can banter to find an acceptable amendment to the motion, they can vote on the motion, or someone can make a motion to postpone the matter.

Member Pehrson said that he would like some reasonable language with which to make this motion stipulate that all four sides of the building will addressed. Mr. Schmitt responded that given the Applicant’s proposal to make this their flagship, this proposal will sink or swim within 12-18 months. If the Applicant can’t give their commitment within twelve months’ time, then the City isn’t going to get a commitment at all.

Chair Cassis said this was a nice compromise. The Applicant will be afforded time to complete the façade treatments. He wanted the restaurant to succeed. He said that the Planning Commission has taken a long time to help them.

The Planning Commission took a brief recess.

Consideration of the request of Gary Jonna of Campus Tech Holdings, LLC, for Preliminary Site Plan and Stormwater Management Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 13 north of Eleven Mile, south of I-96, between Meadowbrook Road and Seeley Road, in the I-1, Light Industrial District. The Applicant is proposing revisions to the previously approved buildings B & C.

Planner Mark Spencer described the project. The north and east is I-96 right-of-way. To the south is the Meadowbrook Medical Office, which is under construction. To the west are the Fed-Ex building and Bridge Street industrial buildings.

The site is zoned I-1, Light Industrial, as are the properties on three sides. To the north is I-96. Across the expressway the land is zoned OST, Office Service Technology. The area is master planned for Industrial uses, and Office is master planned for the area north of the I-96 corridor.

There are wetlands on the site. The Applicant mitigating on the site already. No changes are proposed to the wetland permit that was already written, except for perhaps one hundred feet or so of wetland buffer area. This will be quantified at a later time. A light-cover regulated woodland is located on the site and a woodland permit was previously issued. Only minor replacement tree changes are proposed and the changes are acceptable to the Woodland Consultant. In February of this year the City Council accepted a Conservation Easement over the remaining woodlands and wetlands and the wetland mitigation area.

Mr. Spencer showed the original site plan. Building A is basically the same. The entrance is the same. Parking is very similar. Mr. Spencer then showed the new site plan. The three buildings are all about the same size as the first plan. Building C is a 30,000 square-foot general office building. The Applicant has JPRA Architects moving into this building. Mr. Jonna proposes that this building will meet LEED certifications.

Building B is a speculative 14,210 square-foot mixed office and industrial/warehouse/research building. Building A is a speculative 30,072 square-foot two story office with 20,806 square-foot high-bay research building.

Mr. Spencer said that there are some items of interest, but the Staff supports approval of this plan subject to some modifications. The parking spaces adjacent to landscaping may be reduced to 17 feet deep with a two-foot overhang extending across the adjacent landscaping or sidewalk. The overhang must meet all setback requirements. The proposed parking adjacent to Eleven Mile overhangs into the required forty foot setback by about two feet. The Applicant is asked to redesign the parking to meet the forty foot parking setback requirement and he has agreed to do so.

The parking spaces next to Bridge Street, a private street, are also required to be setback forty feet from the road easement. The Applicant is proposing a parking setback of eight feet from this easement, and the Planning Department supports this design though it will require a Planning Commission Waiver. The Planning Commission may modify setback requirements in those instances where it determines that such modification may result in an improved use of the site and/or improved landscaping, provided however, that such modification of the setback requirements does not reduce the total area of setback on a site below the minimum setback area requirements found in Section 2400. The Community Development Staff supports this Waiver since Bridge Street is private, it functions as a driveway, and the Planning Commission previously approved a reduced setback in this location and the reduction in landscaping is provided on the east side of the site.

The Applicant has provided a joint dumpster enclosure for Buildings B and C. The enclosure does not meet the forty-foot setback required from Bridge Street. The Applicant is asking for a Planning Commission Waiver of the setback requirement.

The Applicant has proposed to develop this site in phases. The Planning Department has discussed this with the Applicant, specifically the concern that all necessary components be included in Phase 1. Mr. Spencer showed the Planning Commission a plan with a blue outline that described the items that the Applicant has agreed to include in Phase 1: the landscaping and sidewalk along Eleven Mile, the detention pond, the mitigation area, the woodland replacements and the access road for detention pond maintenance. This access road will be designed with gravel, and the Applicant will address the final version of the road at a later date.

The Applicant will most likely not change the design of the Building B. Building C is completely speculative and that increases the possibility that the design will change. The Applicant has agreed to come back with a more updated Final Site Plan, and if the design changes substantially, he understands that the Planning Commission will have to review the plan.

The Fire Marshal was concerned about access around the building, within 150 feet of where a fire truck can be parked. The concern comes into play near the warehouse. The Applicant will address this on the Final Site Plan or on a revised Preliminary Site Plan. The Fire Marshal accepts this response.

The City’s Landscape Architect would recommend approval if the Planning Commission grants the Applicant’s requested waivers. These include the landscape berms required along the east property line and Bridge Street and a Waiver of the dumpster landscape screening.

The reviews from Engineering, Traffic, Woodlands and Wetlands recommend approval subject to minor corrections.

The City’s Façade Consultant also recommends approval subject to the Planning Commission granting a Section 9 Waiver for a small increase in metal siding on the north side of Building C. Also the Consultant would like to confirm and approve the final choice of glass colors. This second review of the glass color will ensure that the mixture of colors in the area is acceptable. The Applicant agrees with this suggestion.

Gary Jonna addressed the Planning Commission. He gave an introductory description of JPRA Architects. Their moving here is a long-term commitment to the City of Novi. Mr. Jonna explained that the building is slightly larger now, and it has been oriented to take advantage of the conservation area. The building design now complements that area, and provides greater views and open space. He introduced Greg Tysowski, Vice President of Design. Mr. Tysowski said that they chose Novi because it was progressive and was looking toward the future. They have done work across the United States, Europe and Australia. They designed Somerset and Great Lakes Crossing. They designed the Village of Rochester Hills. They primarily design retail and retail hospitality, but they also do mixed-use projects. They hope to expand the scope of their work in the future.

Mr. Tysowski said this move will bring their employees together. They are pleased that Mr. Jonna has allowed them to be part of the design process. They have tried to make maximum use of natural light, and they are trying to approach LEED credentials; they would be remiss if they didn’t. They currently have 92 employees, but they will be closer to 100 when the move takes place.

Mr. Jonna introduced Paul Landry, their project architect most familiar with the LEED program.

Member Avdoulos thanked Mr. Jonna for another nice development. This is an exciting company for the City. Landry Neumann designed the building. He was pleased that the building is being designed with LEED standards. He has mentioned to the City that he would like to see more of this in the City. It benefits the building, the environment and the City.

Member Avdoulos felt the project is in order, and the Applicant has responded that they would correct the setback issue, so Member Avdoulos confirmed that it wouldn’t have to be addressed in the motion. Regarding the landscape, the Applicant indicated that there would be an improvement in the tree replacement plan; Member Avdoulos confirmed that these trees were not being used in the parking lot. The Applicant has agreed to screen the transformer. Member Avdoulos asked about the loading zone.

Mr. Jonna said that there was a narrative describing how this would be resolved. Mr. Landry explained that the original design didn’t work that well. The new design will move the landscape end-cap ten feet south and the loading zone will become a forty-foot by ten-foot space that allows a truck to pull in and park. The service door is right next to this area. He said the new design functions better and JPRA agreed.

Landscape Architect David Beschke said that he will continue to work with the Applicant to help them attain their landscape LEED certification.

Mr. Alan Hall, the Façade Consultant, explained that the metal panels exceeded their allowed percentage by two percent. He said it was a nicely designed building and one that would be welcomed in this area. He did not see a colored design of the glass building. He did not have an issue with the glass now that he has seen a colored rendering.

Member Avdoulos liked the building and the campus composition. It is understood that major changes to the plan would come back to the Planning Commission for review.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Pehrson:

In the matter of Campus Tech, SP06-67, motion to approve the Revised Preliminary Site Plan subject to: 1) The Applicant providing forty feet of parking setback adjacent to Eleven Mile; 2) A Planning Commission Waiver to permit an eight-foot parking setback adjacent to Bridge Street; 3) A Planning Commission Waiver of the forty-foot dumpster enclosure setback adjacent to Bridge Street; 4) The Applicant including the detention, mitigation and Eleven Mile sidewalk in Phase 1; 5) A Planning Commission Waiver of the landscape berm adjacent to the east property line and Bridge Street; 6) A Planning Commission Waiver of the dumpster enclosure landscape screening; 7) Planning Commission approval of a Section 9 Waiver to permit 52% metal panel siding on north façade; 8) Glass colors being approved by the Façade Consultant; 9) The Applicant labeling Building A and associated parking on the site plan as Phase 3 with the understanding that a separate Final Site Plan will be required for Phase 3 and all concerns of the Fire Marshal regarding Building A shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal with the understanding that if the layout and design of the building changes substantially, a revised preliminary site plan will be required; 10) The Applicant providing a gravel access road to the detention pond outlet structure in Phase 1 with the final road surface to be determined with the Phase 3 Plan; and 11) The conditions and items listed in the Staff and Consultant review letters being addressed on the Final Site Plan submittal; for the reason that the plan presented meets the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.

Member Gutman welcomed JPRA to the City.

Mr. Spencer confirmed that Member Avdoulos’ motion was granting the waivers in those instances where the prepared motion language provided an either/or statement; Member Avdoulos said that was indeed his intent.

Member Pehrson understood this to be the intent as well.

Chair Cassis thanked the Façade Consultant for his review.

In the matter of Campus Tech, SP06-67, motion to approve the Revised Preliminary Site Plan subject to: 1) The Applicant providing forty feet of parking setback adjacent to Eleven Mile; 2) A Planning Commission Waiver to permit an eight-foot parking setback adjacent to Bridge Street; 3) A Planning Commission Waiver of the forty-foot dumpster enclosure setback adjacent to Bridge Street; 4) The Applicant including the detention, mitigation and Eleven Mile sidewalk in Phase 1; 5) A Planning Commission Waiver of the landscape berm adjacent to the east property line and Bridge Street; 6) A Planning Commission Waiver of the dumpster enclosure landscape screening; 7) Planning Commission approval of a Section 9 Waiver to permit 52% metal panel siding on north façade; 8) Glass colors being approved by the Façade Consultant; 9) The Applicant labeling Building A and associated parking on the site plan as Phase 3 with the understanding that a separate Final Site Plan will be required for Phase 3 and all concerns of the Fire Marshal regarding Building A shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal with the understanding that if the layout and design of the building changes substantially, a revised preliminary site plan will be required; 10) The Applicant providing a gravel access road to the detention pond outlet structure in Phase 1 with the final road surface to be determined with the Phase 3 Plan; and 11) The conditions and items listed in the Staff and Consultant review letters being addressed on the Final Site Plan submittal; for the reason that the plan presented meets the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Motion carried 7-0.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Pehrson:

The Planning Commission turned in their changes to for incorporation into the minutes.

There were no Consent Agenda removals for Planning Commission action.

There were no Matters of Discussion.

There were no Supplemental Issues.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Moved by Member Wrobel, seconded by Member Gutman:

The meeting adjourned at 10:38 PM.

MON 03/05/07 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 03/06/07 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

WED 03/14/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 03/19/07 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 03/28/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 04/02/07 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 04/03/07 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

WED 04/11/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 04/16/07 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 04/25/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 05/01/07 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

Transcribed by Jane L. Schimpf, March 23, 2007 Signature on File

Date Approved: March 28, 2007 Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date