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

Present:  Members John Avdoulos, Brian Burke, Victor Cassis, Andrew Gutman (late), Michael Lynch, Michael Meyer, Mark Pehrson, Wayne Wrobel

Absent:  Member David Lipski

Also Present:  Barbara McBeth, Deputy Director of Community Development, Mark Spencer, Planner; Kristen Kapelanski, Planner; David Beschke, Landscape Architect; Ben Croy, Engineer; Kristin Kolb, City Attorney

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

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

No one from the audience wished to speak.

There was no correspondence to share.

Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth said that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee recently met and the members have since recommended that the entire Planning Commission review the southwest quadrant of the City - in particular, the intersections of Eight Mile and Beck, Ten Mile and Napier, Ten Mile and Beck, and Ten Mile and Wixom Road. She said that if the Planning Commission agrees, they could make a motion to adopt the resolution similar to the Master Plan and Zoning Committee’s action. The resolution passed by the Committee is:

Chair Cassis said that the Master Plan review process is conducted every four years, so this review would be acceptable. Some changes have already taken place in the last two or three years. The increased activity at the Master Plan and Zoning Committee regarding the southwest quadrant has spurred this review to take place a bit sooner. While those rezoning requests that have come before the Committee were not endorsed, there has been enough activity that the review of the Master Plan seems warranted. Again, no decisions or actions were taken. Chair Cassis has asked for chart to describe what items are under consideration.

Member Burke understood Chair Cassis’ comments to mean that the Staff would begin preparing documentation for review. Member Burke supported that plan.

Member Meyer thought it would be wise and prudent to step back and review the Master Plan. Based on the activity, Member Meyer felt that this was a good time to do so. He supported the suggestion.

Member Avdoulos said there have been suggestions that some of the Master Plan designations should be challenged. The Committee believes the Planning Commission should review the Plan to determine whether the current designations are viable or not. The last Master Plan review took about two years, so this timing is acceptable. He was comfortable with the historical review of the Master Plan.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Lynch:

Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth said the City Council recently approved the first reading of the educational facilities in the OST District text amendment.

There was no Consent Agenda.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Oliver Hatcher Construction, for Preliminary Site Plan, Special Land Use Permit, and Stormwater Management Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 17, east of Wixom Road, south of Grand River Avenue, in the I-1, Light Industrial District, subject to the B-3, General Business Regulations, pursuant to the terms of the Novi Equities Partnership Consent Judgment.

Planner Kristen Kapelanski described the project. The proposal is for a 13,000 square-foot retail development that will have eight attached units. This area is on the southeast corner of Wixom Road and Grand River. This site is governed by a consent judgment that states the proposal is to be reviewed against the B-3, General Business, standards.

Varsity Lincoln Mercury is to the north and is zoned B-3. Vacant land is to the west and is zoned B-2. Sam’s Club is to the east and south and is also part of the consent judgment. Further south are Catholic Central and a Target. The property is zoned Light Industrial but is developable according to the B-3 standards. The Master Plan calls for Community Commercial for the proposed site and the immediate surroundings.

There are no wetlands or woodlands.

The drive-through on the western side of the building requires a Special Land Use approval. The Planning Commission should consider the findings listed in Section 2516.2.c. The Staff has not identified any concerns regarding this request and therefore recommends approval. A noise analysis has been submitted and indicates that the anticipated noise emanating from the building at the peak hour falls below the limits for adjacent non-residential receiving zones.

The Applicant will be seeking a ZBA Variance for the side-yard loading zone. The Staff supports the request. The Planning Review indicates that the plan is substantial in conformance with the Ordinance and there are only minor items to be reviewed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

The Landscape Review recommends approval, and notes that the Applicant seeks a Planning Commission Waiver for the right-of-way berm requirement. Staff supports this request.

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

Matt Diffen of Diffen Development addressed the Planning Commission. Doug Fura was also introduced. He said he didn’t think there would be any problems addressing the comments in the review letters.

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

Member Wrobel was concerned about the side yard loading dock and the drive-through. He saw car line-ups creating a problem at certain times of the day. He said this could affect the other tenants’ ability to receive their deliveries.

Member Wrobel confirmed that the project was speculative in nature.

Member Wrobel said the project was fine and he could probably go along with it, but he wished to add that there are so many strip malls in the City, and not every mall is full. He was getting tired of the number of strip malls popping up.

Member Burke had the same misgivings about the drive-through lanes stacking into the way of others. He assumed the tenant could be a Starbucks, since their corporate mission is to add drive-through stores to their portfolio, and this is a well-trafficked area. Member Burke was concerned with the design for this user. Mr. Fura said that they reviewed this loading zone area, but the majority of the tenants will be small retail tenants who will not have a great deal of loading. They don’t anticipate a lot of congestion. If it becomes a Starbucks drive-through, their back-ups occur first thing in the morning, which is not when retail deliveries come.

Member Burke said that with six or seven other tenants, and the dumpster service, he was concerned about delivery trucks not being able to use the loading zone. Mr. Fura said that they would still be able to park along the side of the building and handcart their delivery to the door.

Member Burke asked about the split in the island at the southern end. He said he could see people traversing into the exit-only drive of the shopping center. Conversely, he could see people exiting the center, going through this split and exiting to the east. He wondered if the island could be closed off.

Mr. Fura said that the island could probably not be closed off. The whole reason for the second entrance is to help people leave the site, and the Fire Marshal specifically asked for this second entrance. There would be signage provided to assist people in their traversing the center.

Member Lynch said he could support the request. He did think the Planning Commission members made some relative points regarding the traffic. He was concerned about the traffic on Wixom and Grand River. A customer spends 15 minutes in line at the Starbucks, then he will try to get back onto Wixom Road. There is no right turn lane on Wixom Road. There is no right turn lane going westbound onto Grand River. The intersection is a zoo, especially during rush hour. The cars will be backed up all the way to Sam’s Club. The intersection is a major constraint to any future development. There are many other outlots. How is the intersection problem resolved? Has there been a traffic study? Mr. Fura responded that they were performing a traffic count on the area for marketing purposes.

Member Lynch’s concern was this intersection was just going to get worse, especially with the new development and new Wixom Road/I-96 interchange. What is the City doing about this intersection? Is City Council working with the City of Wixom to fix the problem?

Civil Engineer Ben Croy said he has not seen the proposal for the new Wixom Road interchange but, like Beck Road, it might include improvements to the Grand River intersection. He did not know how limited the funds were or whether there were property constraints. Member Lynch asked when the design for Wixom Road would be available for review. Mr. Croy said that the project will be handled by both the State and County, and while he did hear that the project was back on the books, he wouldn’t hazard a guess as to when it would actually materialize.

Ms. McBeth told the Planning Commission that when the full Promenade plan came in several years ago, there were road improvements made at that time, in anticipation of this project. The traffic studies for the surrounding developments would have been reviewed, and the projections would have been based on the anticipated traffic for all the sites. Ms. McBeth said she would be happy to carry the Planning Commission’s concerns to Administration regarding this intersection. Administration would be the contact for taking this to City Council and getting the information to the proper channels.

Chair Cassis said this is a consent judgment site. The Planning Commission still has the right to discuss traffic circulation. He also said that the State is in the process of acquiring the land for the Wixom project, and they are on target for a 2008 start. The project is on the radar. He did not know however, what the design would be. Chair Cassis hoped that the Wixom Road interchange would not be a SPUI.

Member Pehrson asked whether Mr. Croy had any comments regarding the traffic flow. Mr. Croy responded that he had concerns about the split island, but this is a safety item requested by the Fire Marshal. The area will just be required to be signed correctly.

Member Pehrson thought that the back side of the property should look similar to the front. He didn’t want it to have a blank wall with eight doors. He would like the architectural flair of the rest of the building be used on this wall. Mr. Fura said that this back of the building will abut the back of the Varsity building. Member Pehrson responded that it would still be visible from Wixom Road. Mr. Fura didn’t think more than the corner would be visible. Mr. Diffen added that many pine trees would be added to the north side of the building.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Lynch:

Member Avdoulos thought the interference with the stacking lane and the loading area was indeed an opportunity for conflict. He understood that would depend on the time of day. He was also concerned about the end units – the stacking area had issues and the dumpster area also lent itself to maneuverability problems.

Member Avdoulos was also concerned about those leaving the drive-through. The driver will have to make a right, then a left, then another right. Typically, a drive-through leads right to the exiting driveway. If the drive-through went direct, it would bring the drive really close to Wixom Road. Maybe maneuvering would be tricky – and that moves the break in the median further west, which prevents the Fire Marshal from having ease of access. The internal maneuverability of the site was addressed in the Traffic Review. The parking on the west side could create conflicts with the drive-through cars. He was not comfortable with the site layout.

Member Avdoulos noted the angled parking to the east, and the space between the parking and the curb. Ms. Kapelanski confirmed that this lane was one-way only. Member Avdoulos considered the west side parking and whether it, too, should be angled. Maybe that suggestion shortens things up and then the building could be moved over to provide a more direct access for drive-through exiting.

Member Avdoulos liked the building and the layout and its landscaping. He just wasn’t comfortable with the unloading area and the drive-through exiting. He thought these were major concerns and he couldn’t support the project. Member Avdoulos said that recommendations were made on the maneuverability at Sam’s Club. That design is confusing and inconvenient. Member Avdoulos did not want this site laid out in similar fashion.

Mr. Fura said that if the west parking were angled, it would force more cars to the back side of the building. That would cause directional problems and back side congestion. The loading zone is affected by the foundation landscaping. If they could waive the foundation landscaping, they would have more room with which to work.

Member Avdoulos said that certain waivers have to be granted for safety’s sake. If that is what the Applicant would like to propose, he would take a look at the request. There is a drive-through to contend with as well. He understood the placement of the entry parallels the drive across from it. Perhaps if the drive were shifted more to the center then people could easily choose to park on either side. He didn’t know if this would make a difference.

Mr. Fura said his goal was to meet the requirements of the City. He thought the plan met the Ordinance as efficiently as possible. Member Avdoulos felt that the design was one unit too big. If one space were removed, the building could be slid to the east and the drive-through would be more in sync with the other drive and the traffic wouldn’t have to meander around.

Member Avdoulos said these were suggestions only. He understood that the stacking had to be taken into consideration. Member Avdoulos said this design is unique in that the drive-through and stacking go hand in hand with the loading and unloading. He also noted the brick wall screening the dumpster, and said now the Applicant has another monument that sticks out which could affect the unloading if it were to take place in the middle areas.

Chair Cassis said the site was overbuilt. He had a problem with the circulation. He thought that eight separate stalls was a lot for a 13,300 square foot center. Mr. Fura indicated that the perfect spec for Starbucks was a 1,750 square-foot space. Chair Cassis said if the building size were reduced, there would be less people driving on the site, and there wouldn’t be the drive-through and circulation problems. The four parking spots on the south side could possibly be removed, so that drivers aren’t backing out into traffic.

Mr. Croy said that reducing the building would reduce the parking requirement, but this Applicant is maximizing the site as the City has seen with countless other projects. He could see some congestion points, but he was not able to state the best solution.

Chair Cassis said that one could only imagine the morning and evening Starbucks stacking lane. Mr. Croy agreed that there would be traffic. Mr. Fura said that they have laid out the traffic circulation in several different ways, and the proposal before the Planning Commission is the design agreed upon by the Applicant and the Staff. It meets the intent of the Ordinance. The west side parking spaces should not be made angled because it is not a practical solution. When people come into the site, their first instinct is to look for a parking spot. They will immediately turn left, and if those spaces are filled, then the drivers will have to go back out the one-way, go out to Wixom Road, drive down to the Target traffic light and work their way back onto the site. This is not practical. The turning radius provided on this plan meets the requirements of the Ordinance. It is a small site, and there are only a certain amount of people who will be able to get on the site. Once it is full, it is full. If it becomes busy, people will need to slow down and maneuver in the appropriate fashion. The aisle width requirements have been met. They have tried to address the Fire Marshal’s requests as well as the Traffic Engineer’s requests.

Chair Cassis asked if the Applicant could design a smaller building. Mr. Fura said that would kill the deal. Economically, this design is very tight. This is a very expensive building to build. The land is very expensive. The lease rates are on the upper end of the market. The site has good activity because of the Sam’s Club and Target. But if this building loses 1,500 or 2,000 square feet, the site becomes very difficult to make work. Chair Cassis said he would probably vote against the request.

Member Meyer asked how long the plan has been in the works. Mr. Fura responded that he made his first offer to purchase the site two years ago. Member Meyer was sensitive to that statistic. He found it amazing how much developers have to jump hurdles in order to accomplish their goal. Nonetheless, he has listened to his fellow Planning Commission members, and he finds their comments to be truly significant. He hoped that the Applicant would go back to the drawing board. Member Meyer said he could not vote in favor of the plan in light of the traffic flow comments. The site is a good site, and the Applicant has proposed a wonderful building, but the plan doesn’t seem to be safe, once traffic is introduced onto the site.

Member Avdoulos asked if the drive-through was imperative. Mr. Fura said yes, if a Starbucks is to be attracted to the site. Member Avdoulos was concerned about those exiting the drive-through and drivers using the west parking, with other drivers being allowed to go north and south on the west side, people backing out of their parking spaces in that area, people crossing in front of an area where drivers are pulling out, and drivers trying to maneuver off of the site. Member Avdoulos was concerned about the safety of the site, and since the site in its entirety doesn’t provide convenient traffic flow, he didn’t want to create yet another area in Promenade where there is unsafe circulation. Safety is his main concern. Even a drive that goes straight out poses problems because the site is too close to Wixom Road.

Member Avdoulos said that the Ordinance only requires 53 parking spaces yet the Applicant is providing 63. Mr. Fura said that was correct. He said that the market dictates more spaces than the requirement. Starbucks and the east end restaurant will both require more parking. Mr. Fura has room for this parking so he put it in; it will not decrease the traffic flow if he removes it. Member Avdoulos said that reducing the parking may allow him to adjust things on the site plan.

Member Avdoulos liked the development and thought this was a good spot for it. His two issues are the safety of the circulation coming from the drive-through, and the location of the loading area interfering with the stacking area. Member Avdoulos did not want to support the motion on the table, but he also didn’t want to deny the plan. He would rather postpone the review to provide time to the Applicant to address these issues.

Chair Cassis was surprised that the Staff did not have any solutions to offer. Ms. McBeth said that the Staff has worked with the Applicant on this plan. There were many adjustments made after the pre-application meeting. The Applicant really is trying to maximize the site for his own purposes. The site is developed all the way around, and now this Applicant has a certain size and shape with which they are trying to do quite a bit. Ms. McBeth said that Staff would take the comments of the Planning Commission back to the Applicant and see if they could work with any of the suggestions, if the Applicant would like to do so, and then the plan can come back before the Planning Commission. Designing at the table is always a difficult thing to do. The Staff is always happy to work with applicants.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Burke:

Member Avdoulos wanted to make sure that the motion was acceptable to the Applicant. This project does have merit, and it is in the right location. He thought the plan could work, but the comments made by the Planning Commission are rather uniform and he would like the Applicant to address them. The Applicant can work with Staff, and if issues around that building could be cleared up, then the Planning Commission could revisit the plan. In the past, the Planning Commission has been concerned about stacking, albeit the plans were banks. Emergency egress is a paramount issue, which is provided. The only conflict is the stacking and loading area.

Mr. Fura thanked the Planning Commission for postponing the review. They have looked at this plan fairly closely, and he thought they had worked it out with Staff but they will look at the plan again.

Member Avdoulos noted that the Staff works diligently with each Applicant. The Staff can tell an Applicant when they will need a waiver, but the Planning Commission looks at the reports and after seeing project after project, they become familiar with "hot spot" topics. Sometimes it is circulation and other times it may be something else. He didn’t feel comfortable approving the plan as is, for safety’s sake.

Mr. Fura thought that the Staff has worked well with them. He has tried to accommodate their suggestions, and he will try to continue working with them. He didn’t want to kill the project. They have a ton of money already into the plan. It is a very tight economic deal. If they can’t find a solution they will move on to something else.

Member Avdoulos understood that the Starbucks location was placed in the area of greatest visibility, but he was thinking that if it were placed on the other side and the one end of the building was popped out to get the drive-through, it might eliminate the back-up traffic, but he understood that there are other issues at play. Mr. Fura said that was his original idea, but it didn’t provide a high-profile space. There was also a stacking issue and a traffic flow issue.

Chair Cassis said he rarely opposes the recommendation of Staff. He said that the Planning Commission wants the project to go, and it seldom comes to this kind of conclusion. Chair Cassis continued that the Planning Commission is bothered by the circulation and therefore the plan is not good for the City, the Applicant or the customer. He said that Starbucks would have ten or fifteen employees alone. He said without knowing who else may rent at this site, the Applicant would not understand the parking needs. What if they have more demands? Therefore, more traffic is being created. This is what really concerns Chair Cassis. The Planning Commission is not charged with reviewing the economics of the plan; they review the site design to determine what is good from a planning point of view, a customer point of view, a traffic point of view, and Chair Cassis feels the Staff is bending over backward to accommodate them. The Planning Commission wants to protect the customer. With great regret Chair Cassis cast his vote.

It was noted that Member Gutman arrived at 7:15 PM but was unable to join the review because of a conflict of interest.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of D & S Contractors for Preliminary Site Plan with One-Family Cluster Option, Stormwater Management Plan, Wetland Permit, and Woodland Permit approval. The subject property is located in Section 3, west of Novi Road, between Thirteen Mile and Fourteen Mile, in the R-4, One Family Residential District. The subject property is 3.07 acres and the Applicant is proposing a six-unit attached one family residential development.

Planner Mark Spencer described the project. There are two buildings housing six units. Each unit is approximately 2,000 square feet. The site is south of Hickory Woods Elementary School. To the west are Single Family Residential homes. To the south is open space for Morgan Creek Estates. To the east are open space for the Maples of Novi and a small portion of the Maples. The properties to the east, west and the subject site are master planned for Single Family Residential. The north property is master planned for educational use. The south property is master planned as a private park.

The zoning of the site, and that to the north, west and south is R-4. To the east is R-A with a consent judgment. There are extensive wetlands on the site. The City’s wetland map can always be improved upon by an on-site visit. The site is almost 100% within a regulated woodland. The site is a low-priority natural features habitat area.

Attached single family units are allowed in R-4, subject to a Planning Commission Finding that the proposed development meets the one family clustering option requirements of Section 2403 of the Zoning Ordinance. The clustering option may be used when the Planning Commission finds that the use of a conventional development technique would destroy the unique environmental significance of the site, and fifty percent or more of the site is regulated – woodlands or wetlands. Fifty percent of the quality regulated natural features must be preserved. This Applicant is saving more than fifty percent (50.04%) and will place a conservation easement on that land. The Applicant also proposes a low landscape wall along the perimeter of the area to be preserved, to prevent encroachment by homeowners. Mr. Spencer displayed a plan that showed the boundaries of this easement. There will be open space areas where the detention pond will be located, and there will be some common landscape areas too.

The intent of this option is to allow flexibility around natural features or to allow a transitional development. If single lots were designed for this site, more of the regulated woodlands could be cleared, and there could be more encroachment into the wetland buffer areas. The Planning Commission should find that this use provides a transition or preserves the environmental significance of the site. The site must be an unusual shape, or have unbuildable soils, or have severe topography, or have at least fifty percent coverage of natural features, the latter being the trigger for this site. The development must preserve at least 50% of the site in an undisturbed state. The Applicant has already submitted three sets of drawings for review.

The overall density of the development cannot exceed that which is permitted in the district. This site could yield 3.3 units per acre; the Applicant is proposing 1.96 units per acre. The attached dwellings meet the Ordinance requirements for maximum shared walls. The clusters must be of four or less units, be thirty feet from a private street or right-of-way, and 75 feet from the property line. There must be at least 75 feet between clusters. The design meets these requirements. The Applicant must submit an agreement for perpetually maintaining the open space areas. The Applicant is required to provide a six foot berm adjacent to thoroughfares, though one is not designed along Novi Road. The Planning Commission may waive this requirement to preserve natural features. This waiver is supported by Staff, due to the slope along Novi Road, and the berm would require significant tree removal. It would probably encroach into the wetland.

The plan generally complies with the Zoning Ordinance. There is a 2,800 square foot encroachment into the 25-foot wetland setback with the detention pond. The Wetland Consultant recommends approvals of this plan, as the Applicant has worked with him on reducing this impact considerably.

The Applicant proposes private streets. The City requires that private drives in excess of 150 feet end in a cul-de-sac or T-turnaround. This street does not provide either feature. The street is about 180 feet long. The Fire Marshal supports the design if the homes are equipped with NFPA 13D fire suppression sprinkler systems. The Applicant has agreed to do so. The Staff supports this request because the excess drive length is minimal and the turnaround would just encroach the woodlands more so.

The proposal will not generate much traffic – about sixty trips per day. Additional road improvements on Novi Road will not be required because of the low traffic yield. The entrance requires a Same Side Driveway Spacing Waiver of eleven feet, and an Opposite Side Driveway Spacing Waiver of five feet. The Engineering Department and the Traffic Consultant support these waivers due to the location of the natural features on the site. The chosen location is the only practical spot due to the natural features.

The City requires sidewalks on both sides of streets. The Applicant has provided this within the site but not on the north side of the entrance street – he is seeking a City Council Waiver. Staff supports the request in order to preserve natural features. The residents would be well-served by the south-side sidewalk anyway.

The proposed elevations contain as much as 39% asphalt shingles. The peaked roofs are residential in nature. One elevation provides 16% wood trim, which exceeds the permitted amount for Region One. The Façade Consultant supports this design as the buildings are compatible with the surrounding area.

There are minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. The Applicant has agreed to make these changes. The plan is therefore recommended for approval, with the items mentioned in the provided motion sheet.

Al Valentine from GAV Associates architecture firm addressed the Planning Commission. They have worked hard over the last sixteen months to address the Staff’s concerns. The waivers are for minor items. He didn’t think there was much more that could be addressed.

Mr. Valentine said the 2,000 square-foot homes would each have two- or three-car garages. Half of the site will be developed. The six units will sit on 1.5 acres.

No one in the audience wished to speak. Member Pehrson read the correspondence into the record:

Ernesto J. Smith, 31116 Centennial Drive: Approved of the plan.

James Remijan, 41677 Magnolia Court: Objected because City taxes go up, traffic increases, and the City doesn’t need that.

Dolores Kaschalk, 31044 Silverdale: Objected because condos are not needed, it is too close to the school, and traffic and visibility would be negatively impacted.

Shirley Anne Wahlstrom, 41814 Independence: Objected because the area is overbuilt with this type of construction. Property values cannot be maintained. The elementary school is overcrowded.

Donna Melton, 30662 Vine Court: Objected because there is a glut of condos and this would drop the area’s property value.

Barbara Hanshaw, 41865 Cantebury: Objected because there is already too much development. She felt the natural features make Novi what it is today.

Phyllis Abbott, 31187 Livingston Drive: Objected because there are too many condos already.

Brian Truba, 41891 Cantebury: Objected because the plan does meet Section 2514.b.3 of the Ordinance. Property values will decline and there’s too many condos in the area.

Barbara Miller, 41794 Independence: Objected because there are too many condos, and the glut will affect property values.

Gary Haf, 41677 Juniper: Objected because there are too many condos and land should be preserved.

Mary Kay McEachin, 30877 Jasper Ridge: Objected to more residential because it affects property values.

Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing.

Member Avdoulos noted that the Applicant has been working with the City on this plan. He felt the plan met the intent of the clustering option. The natural features allow for this option to be used and although the site is not unusually shaped, the woodland shape creates a "U." There isn’t severe topography other than the wetlands. The Applicant has tried to contain the detention on the site. The Fire Marshal will accept the design with the inclusion of the NFPA sprinkler systems installed. A lot has gone into this project. The homes are not sized super-extraordinarily, and they are pleasant looking. They are situated in such a way that they won’t be that noticeable. They do not front Novi Road. The road leads into the site. The Applicant has done a nice job working with this cluster option. Staff supporting some of the waiver requests will aid in making this site work well and is appropriate.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Chair Cassis complimented the Staff for working with the Applicant on the cluster option. It works well for this sensitive area. The Applicant has captured the right way to align the buildings. The natural features are being preserved. He felt this project would meet with its own success.

Member Meyer felt the key was saving the natural features. He thanked Mr. Spencer for his presentation regarding the preservation area. He thought the plan represented sixteen months of productive work.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Wrobel:

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Jeff Jones of Automotive Techniques for Preliminary Site Plan and Special Land Use Permit approval. The subject property is located in Section 24, at the northwest corner of Grand River Avenue and Seeley Road, in the I-1, Light Industrial District. The Applicant is requesting approval to allow an automotive service establishment in an existing building.

Planner Mark Spencer described the project. The Applicant would like to rent 5,000 square feet of the western building of the Novi Commerce Center. The original plan was approved on April 3, 1986. To the north and west is a fuel distribution center. To the east are a single family home, industrial uses and a night club. To the south are offices and a nursery. To the west is an office building. The property is zoned I-1 and master planned for Industrial, as are the properties to the east, north and west. To the south the property is zoned and master planned for Light Industrial, along with some Community Commercial, which is zoned NCC.

Mr. Spencer said that an automobile service business that would be allowed on this site excludes body shops, painting, undercoating, tire recapping and dismantling. Minimum lot size for the site would be two acres; this site is 6.9 acres. The minimum site frontage is 200 feet; this site is in excess of 300 feet. No vehicle parking is allowed in front of the building front setback line. This parking was previously designed as such. The Applicant will seek a ZBA variance. No vehicle parking is allowed in the side yard setbacks. The Applicant will seek a variance. The service doors will not face the front. There is only one curb cut onto Grand River.

Staff has asked the Applicant to add notes to the plan for the following: Vehicles parking on this site for business shall be limited to customers and employees only; No vehicles shall be stored for longer than 24 hours or for used car sales; No wrecked or partially dismantled vehicles or those without tags may be stored outside.

Special Land Use applicants must submit a noise analysis which documents their ability to comply with the Ordinance. This must be completed by a certified sound engineer. The Applicant submitted one analysis but they have been asked to resubmit with the certification. The Applicant said that they would do so. Staff does not think that noise would be an issue.

The Planning Commission must make the Special Land Use findings: The proposed use: 1) Will not cause any detrimental impact on existing thoroughfares or the capabilities of public services and facilities; 2) Is compatible with the natural features and characteristics of the land and adjacent uses of land; 3) Is consistent with the goals, objectives and recommendations of the City’s Master Plan for Land Use; 4) Will promote the use of land in a socially and economically desirable manner; and 5) Is (a) listed among the provision of uses requiring Special Land Use review as set forth in the various zoning districts of this Ordinance, and (b) is in harmony with the purposes and conforms to the applicable site design regulations of the zoning district in which it is located.

Mr. Spencer said that the site has 229 parking spaces with no room for additional spaces. The current tenants include a dance studio, a retail store, offices, warehouses and wholesale services. Without this use, the site would need 213 spaces. This use requires an additional 54 spaces. This exceeds this Applicant’s historic use of about 16 spaces, based on his current location in Farmington Hills. The majority of his high-end vehicles are stored inside during the evenings. This site requires 267 spaces, so there is a 38-space shortfall. The Applicant is seeking a variance. Staff supports this request, as long as future tenants are warehouses, industrial or wholesale businesses. Outdoor parking for this tenant will be limited to 24 hours. The Applicant won’t have vehicles parked there long term. Mr. Spencer noted that the dance studio traffic is in the evening, therefore the parking is likely accurate for this site. Parking can not be expanded without foiling the loading areas.

Mr. Spencer said the site needs a van barrier-free parking space. The Applicant has been asked to provide this, and bring the striping and signage to order for the handicapped spaces.

Mr. Spencer said the Fire Marshal approves of the plan subject to the Applicant meeting all of the building code requirements. The Staff recommends approval of this site plan and Special Land Use permit subject to the Planning Commission making certain findings and the Applicant being granted certain variances, and minor items being addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

Jeff Jones addressed the Planning Commission. He stated that he lives in Novi and wishes to move his business to Novi. His average car count is six cars per week. His business is serving high-end car owners. He is not a bump or paint shop. He does not keep his cars outside.

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

Member Burke welcomed the Applicant to Novi. He was impressed with the Applicant’s response letter. Member Burke spoke to the neighboring tenant and found out the previous was very loud, and he didn’t think Mr. Jones could be louder than that business. He confirmed that the noise study requires credentials, which Mr. Jones is trying to find a business that would do it for a reasonable cost. Member Burke asked if the stipulation could be waived. Mr. Spencer said that there are two options – supply the study or seek a ZBA Variance.

Member Burke said that the people that will be directly affected by the noise (neighbors) are not concerned. Member Burke regularly visits the service department at his employment and he also believes that the type of noise that will be generated will be nowhere near the limit. He wished to help expedite this for the Applicant. Mr. Spencer said there isn’t a "fast track," except that the analysis would not be required until the Final Site Plan submittal. The Applicant still has to go to the ZBA. The tougher consideration is finding a reasonable price tag on the analysis.

Member Burke supported the project.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Meyer:

Member Avdoulos said the request was straight-forward. He confirmed that the application for the ZBA has already been turned in and the noise analysis would have to be on the June docket. He asked Member Meyer what his instincts were regarding the variance for the parking. Member Meyer was assured that the vehicles would not be littering the site – they would be stored indoors, so he didn’t feel as though the request would challenge the ZBA.

An unidentified man spoke on behalf of the Applicant, stating that the analysis would cost him somewhere around $3,000; it was his understanding that the Applicant would have an enclosed compressor. It is not a big item. The neighbors are satisfied. He wished to help facilitate the Applicant’s request to put this request on the May meeting.

Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth thought that Public Hearing notices might be the hold-up on putting the noise analysis on the May ZBA agenda.

Mr. Jones said that the analysis that he has would indicate he is under the requirement. If he really has to pay for a better analysis, he would like it to be done right. He didn’t want it to slow up his ability to move to Novi. He wondered if he could be granted a one-month waiver for the noise analysis.

Chair Cassis said that the motion on the floor was the best that the Planning Commission could do and that it would be better if the matter was not discussed further.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Meyer:

Moved by Member Lynch, seconded by Member Burke:

There were no Consent Agenda Removals.

There were no Matters for Discussion.

Member Meyer asked whether the City could provide names of noise analysis engineers to Mr. Jones or any applicant. He thought that $3,000 was an overwhelming amount for such a study. Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth said that the City does have a list and Planner Mark Spencer was working to update the companies. Special Land Use applications trigger the need for this study. The Ordinance does not give options to not require the study. Chair Cassis wondered if there were different levels of studies for this. Ms. McBeth said that the Ordinance does not break it down. Mr. Spencer said the City’s standard is fairly limited in scope.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Moved by Member Lynch, seconded by Member Wrobel:

The meeting adjourned at 9:16 PM.

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

TUE 05/08/07 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

WED 05/09/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 05/14/07 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 05/23/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 05/28/07 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

MON 05/30/07 PLANNING COMMISSION LEGAL TRAINING 7:30 PM

MON 06/04/07 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 06/05/07 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

WED 06/13/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 06/18/07 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 06/27/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

Transcribed by Jane L. Schimpf, May 1, 2007 Signature on File

Date Approved: May 9, 2007 Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date