The meeting was called to order at or about 7:05 PM.

Present:  Members John Avdoulos, Brian Burke, Victor Cassis, Andrew Gutman (7:09 PM), Michael Meyer (7:44 PM) Mark Pehrson, Wayne Wrobel

Absent:  Member David Lipski, Michael Lynch (excused)

Also Present:  Steve Rumple, Director of Community Development; Barbara McBeth, Deputy Director of Community Development, Mark Spencer, Planner; Kristen Kapelanski, Planner; Tim Schmitt, Planner; David Beschke, Landscape Architect; Ben Croy, Engineer; Doug Necci, Façade Consultant; Steve Dearing, Traffic Consultant; Kristen Kolb, City Attorney

Member Burke 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.

There were no Committee Reports.

Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth introduced Steven Rumple, Director of Community Development. He most recently worked for White Lake Township for nine years, and before that he worked as a Planner for the City of Novi. Mr. Rumple said that it was a pleasure to be back in Novi. He looked forward to working with the Planning Commission in the future.

Member Gutman arrived at 7:09 PM.

Consideration of the request of Doug Thal for a one year Preliminary Site Plan extension. The subject property is on the southwest corner of Peary Court and Hudson Drive in Section 4, in the I-1, Light Industrial District. The subject property is approximately 4.75 acres. The Applicant is proposing a 25,395 square-foot and a 49,805 square-foot speculative light industrial/office building.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

The Public Hearing was opened for Planning Commission’s recommendation to City Council for an Ordinance to amend the Zoning Ordinance, Article 9, Section 901, NCC, Non-Center Commercial District, to permit instructional facilities and daycare centers.

Planner Tim Schmitt said this is another developer-initiated Text Amendment, the request being submitted pursuant to a policy recently approved by City Council. The request is a modification to the uses allowed in the NCC District, specifically to add instructional facilities and adjust the daycare center language. The Applicant proposes a change to Section 901.3, Office Uses, adding a new Section 901.3.d, which would permit instructional centers for language, math and computers. The Applicant also proposes adding a Subsection 901.3.d.9 that would permit daycare operations under thirty children, with no child staying longer than 4.5 hours.

Staff has reviewed the request and is hesitant to support the daycare change, as the Daycare Ordinance was updated three years ago after a one-year review. That change was quite exhaustive and covered provisions that are not necessarily easily enforceable, but enforceable nonetheless by City Staff. In most cases, daycares are covered under the Special Land Use provision. This is true in the NCC District – daycare is a Special Land Use. Mr. Schmitt noted that it would be virtually unenforceable to track the number of hours one child is in a daycare facility. Staff would ask the Planning Commission for additional time to review this request if they are inclined to consider this change.

Staff has also reviewed the instructional facility language, and a copy of the Staff’s proposal was also provided to the Planning Commission for review. Staff does not wish to limit the learning disciplines to just language, math and computers. Staff suggests that language be added that requires the use to comply with all State laws and licensing requirements. Also, Staff suggests that language be added that requires all activity to be within the enclosed building, unless the use is otherwise permitted elsewhere in the District.

Mr. Schmitt said that if the Planning Commission recommends this amendment and City Council approves it, something like a Sylvan tutoring center would be allowed. The language of the text amendment would also allow a business to teach, e.g., a foreign language or an art class.

Jonathan Brateman addressed the Planning Commission. He thanked the Planning Commission for their review. He thought this inclusion of instructional centers is a logical extension of the Ordinance. He said some might feel that it is implicit in the Ordinance, based upon the fact that a dance studio is allowed which, by definition, is an instructional center. NCC also allows sales offices, in which sales training would likely occur. Further, the Ordinance already states that uses similar to those listed could also be used.

Mr. Brateman requested the Planning Commission to consider the other change as well. He has been marketing a vacancy at this site for over a year. He said that because of language and cultural differences, one of his interested parties requested the daycare change because his Japanese clients cannot go to a standard daycare. Without the daycare component, those mothers wanting to learn English as their second language or attend their older child’s tutoring session need a daycare for younger children. This interested party cannot justify opening the tutoring facility without this feature. Mr. Brateman said that executives from Japan want their children to maintain their Japanese language so that when they return to Japan, the children have not fallen behind.

Mr. Brateman understood he would probably have to reapply for a Special Land Use approval, but he did not want his consideration to hinge on the outdoor playing area. It was his experience that educators are very honest and wouldn’t lie about how long the children were in the daycare each day. He said they wouldn’t have a full-scale playground available, but this complex does not have a back-side parking area, and a swingset or something similar could be placed in that area.

Mr. Brateman would like the Planning Commission to consider each request separately, and the daycare use could be further discussed when he returned for the Special Land Use approval. The number of parcels in the NCC District is very narrow in scope. It goes from Grand River and Meadowbrook to just before Haggerty. There are only a handful of parcels, many of which are already developed. There isn’t much probability that another daycare would come forward in this district.

Chair Cassis asked Mr. Brateman to clarify his position on the proposed text amendment. Mr. Brateman asked whether the instructional center language is considered a retail use or an office use. This makes a difference in the NCC District, because retail percentages are limited. Mr. Schmitt responded that the instructional center is its own section, apart from the generally-recognized retail uses. He said it would have to be addressed when the time arises. On its face, it does not appear to qualify as a traditional retail use.

Chair Cassis asked what districts allow daycare. Mr. Schmitt responded that daycares are allowed in residential, either as a principal or special land use, based on the number of children and type of care, in the NCC, TC, TC-1, OST, OS-1 and B-2 and B-3 districts.

Mr. Brateman is trying to market this property to an instructional center with daycare and he didn’t want a surprise at the end of the tenant alteration whereby his tenant is told he is noncompliant. Mr. Brateman understood the comment to mean that this use would be considered an office use as opposed to a retail use. Mr. Schmitt reiterated that the use does not meet a traditional definition of a retail use. However, the provision that is being considered also includes service, which is what Mr. Schmitt thought the use fell under.

Mr. Brateman explained that the City did not want one strip center after another along Grand River. They created the NCC District to limit the amount of retail. Mr. Brateman worked on this Ordinance with the City in an effort to make it more marketable. Now, the market has changed, and rather to try to make a wholesale change of this site from NCC to B-3, Mr. Brateman was just trying to open the door. Mr. Brateman asked if 7.b could be eliminated and the discussion on that would be held at another time.

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

Member Pehrson asked where a karate shop would be allowed. Mr. Schmitt responded that he thought it could be interpreted that it would be allowed in NCC. Member Pehrson asked if there wasn’t a component for daycare, would unattended children be able to stay at this site for their lesson? Mr. Schmitt said that the daycare was a secondary component within the instructional center; it did not apply to the children being tutored.

Member Pehrson asked what would happen if a person brought a child to a sports club and that child played in the lobby while the receptionist watched. Would that constitute a daycare type use that would be allowed because it wasn’t a bona fide daycare? Mr. Schmitt said that when the number of children is larger, then it would be a problem.

Member Pehrson asked why Mr. Brateman kept asking about the retail. Mr. Brateman said that he does not think this is a retail use, and the site is limited to the amount of retail allowed. He said that another way the City could address this request is to allow more retail on NCC sites. Once he signs this lease, if it is considered a retail use, he would not be able to add any more retail.

Member Pehrson confirmed that daycare is in the Ordinance as a Special Land Use. Mr. Schmitt said the current Ordinance requires a Special Land Use approval and an outside play area. Mr. Schmitt said that Planner Mark Spencer has more experience in reviewing the NCC District, and he stated that this educational facility would not be considered a retail use.

Member Pehrson supported Staff’s language, knowing that the Special Land Use for the daycare could be used in the future.

Member Burke asked about the 7.b requirement. Mr. Schmitt explained that the daycare would permit an outside play area, and supersedes the stipulation that the use must be within an enclosed building. It wouldn’t matter if 7.b was deleted, because the provision is elsewhere in the NCC Ordinance.

Member Avdoulos thought the discussion was thorough. He leaned toward accepting the instructional facility language and keeping the daycare language under the Special Land Use section. He thought that the reiteration of 7.b would be acceptable if it helped people better understand the Ordinance.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Burke:

Chair Cassis was fully aware of the NCC Ordinance and he did not think it worked well for some time. As a result, the uses in the district are somewhat confusing. This amendment is an attempt to solve Mr. Brateman’s issue.

Member Meyer arrived at 7:44 PM.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Dr. Arvind Gulati for Preliminary Site Plan, Stormwater Management Plan, and Woodland Permit approval. The subject property is located in Section 27, on the west side of Novi Road between Nine Mile and Ten Mile, in the OS-1, Office Service District. The subject property is 2.89 acres and the Applicant is proposing to construct two dental office buildings.

Planner Kristen Kapelanski described the office complex. Building A is 5,686 square feet; Building B is 8,194 square feet. The subject site is zoned OS-1 and master planned for Office. To the north is a single family home, zoned R-4 and master planned for Office. To the east is River Oaks, zoned RM-1 and master planned for Multiple Family Residential. Arrowon Pines Condominiums are to the south and west, zoned R-4 and master planned for Single Family Residential.

There is a wooded wetland, but no impacts to the wetland are proposed. The discharge of pretreated stormwater and buffer disturbance does require a minor use wetland permit that can be administratively approved. The Wetland Consultant recommends approval of the plan, with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. Parts of the west and north borders of the site fall within a floodplain as well. The woodlands are on the west side of the site; the impacts to the woodlands on the east side of the site include the removal of three trees greater than 36" dbh. The Woodland Consultant recommends approval with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

The Planning Review indicates the plan is in substantial compliance with the Ordinance. There are minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

The Landscape Review recommends approval – there are three waivers being requested. On the north side of the site, there is a sharp drop-off so a berm installation is impractical. The Applicant seeks a Berm Waiver, and the request is supported by Staff. The Applicant has proposed an intermittent berm, 3.5’-4.5’ in height, and a 31-foot greenbelt along the south property line near Arrowon Pines. This will preserve existing mature trees and would allow for additional buffer plantings. This waiver request is also supported by Staff. The Applicant seeks a waiver of the berm height for the berm along the west side of the site. The thick vegetation and the distance to the property line provide an acceptable buffer. A shorter berm would preserve the thick vegetation. This Waiver request is also supported.

The Applicant seeks a Section 9 Façade Waiver for the use of split-faced concrete masonry units. This material emulates a stone base. The Façade Consultant supports the request and said it will enhance the overall façade composition and will work well with the proposed landscape elements.

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

William Cochoran, the project architect, addressed the Planning Commission. He offered to answer questions.

No one from the audience wished to speak. Member Pehrson read the correspondence:

Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing.

Member Avdoulos remembered when the rezoning came through and the proximity issue was discussed. The buildings were designed with a residential character so that they would blend better with their surroundings. The buildings are only one story tall. The buildings are situated well. There is a full frontage on the street. There is a nice landscaping element. The buildings vary in size.

Member Avdoulos wasn’t a fan of one-way traffic signs, though he thought it would work well for this site. The Traffic Review indicated that the placement of a "one-way" sign and a "do not enter" sign should be used at the entrances.

The Landscape Waivers are self-explanatory. They are supported by Staff due to the topography and existing vegetation. There is a parking lot tree deficiency, for which the Applicant proposes to offset through funding the tree fund. He is worried about transitional sites working, but he felt that this Applicant has worked well with the City on the design.

Member Avdoulos thought the Façade Consultant’s comment was well-stated. The use of split-faced block will not be obtrusive.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Burke:

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Burke:

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Burke:

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Carl E. Gaiser Site Plan and Special Land Use Permit approval. The subject property is located in section 36, east of Meadowbrook Road, between Eight and Nine Mile roads, in the R-3, One-Family Residential District. The subject property is 2.86 acres, and the Applicant is proposing to use an existing building as a church.

Planner Mark Spencer described the project. A church is a use allowed in residential zonings. This parcel and the properties to the north, east and south are zoned R-3 and master planned for Single Family Residential. To the west is R-1 property, also master planned for Single Family Residential.

There are no regulated woodlands or wetlands.

Mr. Spencer showed the layout of the site. There is an existing building that is now being used for a daycare. There is a parking lot serviced by one drive coming in from Meadowbrook. There are many evergreens along the south boundary. There is a berm with landscaping on the east boundary. There are plants and trees along the north side of the parking lot. There is a residential home with a garage.

A 2,200 square-foot church was built on this site in 1983. It was converted to a daycare in 1988 for Pathways to Learning.

The Planning Staff believes that little has changed since this site was approved. There is more traffic, and things have built up a bit, but this is still a minor arterial road through residential. The Applicant proposes some minor improvements, and while retrofits are often not requested to do so, this Applicant was asked to make this improvements because of the public gathering nature of his site in contrast to the Single Family Residential that surrounds it.

The Fire Marshal was asked to confirm his ability to navigate the site. Minor parking lot improvements will be made. Turning radius requirements will be met without the fire apparatus using parking spaces.

Churches are required to be set back 75 feet from the property lines. This building meets that measurement except on the south side – where it is 74 feet. The Applicant will need a variance. The Staff supports the request since this is an existing building.

Churches are not permitted to have front yard parking, which means the area between the front of the principal building and the right-of-way or future right-of-way. The building is setback 96 feet from the right-of-way and the existing parking is 75 feet from the right-of-way. The Applicant must obtain a ZBA variance to permit the 75 foot front yard parking setback. The Planning Staff supports this variance since the parking area is already in place, it was previously approved for a church and it meets the setback requirements of 75 feet that is required for other non-single family dwelling uses also permitted in the District.

Church parking lots must be set back 35 feet from the side and back property lines when adjacent to residential. This parking lot does not meet this number on the south side. It is only twenty feet from the property line. Staff supports this request for a variance as the lot is already in place and meets the requirements for other non-single family uses that are permitted in the district.

Parking lots must be screened, and this site does not meet the intent of the Ordinance. In 1983 this site was granted a variance for a landscaped berm. The Applicant planted one hundred evergreens instead. Most of these trees are still in place. After twenty years though, the lower branches have begun to die off. The Landscape Architect supports a Berm Waiver, if the Applicant provides supplemental plantings. There is an east berm, and it could use more plant material, on which the Applicant has agreed to work.

There are minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

Mr. Spencer said this is a Special Land Use and there are conditions attached to this request. The site must be accessed by an arterial road. The site must be at least two hundred feet wide (the site is 299 feet). It must be three acres in size, but the net of this site is only 2.45 acres. This requires a ZBA variance. Staff supports this request because the site was previously approved as a church.

Special Land Use applicants must submit a noise analysis. An incomplete analysis was submitted, and Staff has reviewed it and finds that the analysis meets the criteria but was not prepared by a certified engineer. The Applicant will have to resubmit this analysis with a certification. The Staff does not anticipate any issues with that item.

Mr. Spencer reminded the Planning Commission about approving a Special Land Use request. The findings must show that the use will not cause any detrimental impact on 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. It is consistent with the goals, objectives and recommendations of the City’s Master Plan for Land Use. It will promote the use of land in a socially and economically desirable manner. It is listed among the provision of uses requiring Special Land Use review as set forth in the various zoning districts of this Ordinance, and 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 previous church was abandoned and the use is not "grandfathered." With the Ordinances changing over time, the site is non-conforming for a church, so the approval is again required, as are the variances.

Pastor Charles Sexton addressed the Planning Commission. He thanked Mr. Spencer for all of his help. He said that his father was the original pastor when the church was formed in 1946. The church is relocating from the Detroit area. Their congregation draws from a large suburban area. They have no problem complying with the review letters.

Chair Cassis opened the floor for public comment:

• Linda Schlessman: Adjacent neighbors to the church parking lot. They bought their home in 1982 when the site was vacant. They are concerned about certain issues – noise, traffic, adequate screening and privacy. Daycare hours are different from church hours. Churches have activities when the Schlessmans will be home. Many cars will come and go at the same time. The landscape screening has been inadequate for many years. She showed pictures of the site from her perspective. She cited a ten-year old City letter requesting that dead material be removed, though it never was. She had the Planning Commission minutes from May 7, 1997 when the daycare wanted to add an addition. She has met Pastor Sexton, and he promised her he would take care of the church site. The residents would like that but are concerned about intensifying the use of the property. Now a daycare/church and a rental property co-exist. They believe that this is overuse of the site. She asked the City to consider the privacy of the neighbors.
• Bob Schlessman: Stated that all of the proposed landscaping is located between the church and the rental home. They have not seen a plan for the south side. The trees in that area are not in good condition, though the site plan said they were. The trees have been dead for ten years. The others are very sparse. There are drainage issues with the parking lot. The swale is near the trees and when it rains heavily water stands on the parking lot. There are a substantial number of variance requests. The 1982 plan was approved, but the ZBA did not properly approve the variances. The landscaping between the two sites was negotiated to appease the neighbors. Those plantings have not been maintained. He wondered by the berm couldn’t be placed on top of the existing asphalt on the south side of the site.
• Gary Kirglaski, Lot 75: Situated east of the property, behind the berm. He asked about the existing home. He thought the church required the entire acreage, so what are the plans for the home? He did not have a problem with the church coming back. His problems are that previously when the site was a church the property was not maintained. The landscaping was terrible. The grass was not regularly cut. The daycare did a better job, but no one would ever cut the east side of the berm. The existing trees are numerous and send leaves everywhere in the fall. The trees have never been properly cared for. He wanted to know whether there are any expansion plans. The site never complied with its landscaping plan and plant death over the years has exacerbated the problem. He wanted more information regarding the proposed landscape plan.
• Nancy Kettler, southerly neighbor: Had the same concerns with noise, traffic and landscaping. She wanted to know what the expansion plans were.
• Michael and Antoinette Louis, northerly neighbors: Had concerns about a privacy barrier on their side of the site. They have not heard a proposal for this. They do not know what the long term effect of this church will be on their home. They are concerned about traffic and privacy. He had no concerns about a church per se, but he did note that the requirement is for the site to be three acres. He didn’t want to see this church expand beyond what is reasonable. This would infringe on their privacy. They were also concerned about the use of the house – it is a rental and the pastor will not be using it. She has heard that a previous renter was part of a drug raid. There is no buffer between her home and the home on this site. She asked who would maintain this site until such time as the church arrives. The grass has not been cut thus far.

Member Pehrson read the correspondence:

• Maximilian Mile, 41159 Marks Drive: Concerned about the traffic and said there are too many churches in the area.
• Mary Klein Trust, 2527 Romanza Road, Henderson NV: Objected for traffic reasons and there are too many churches in the area.
• Eddie Ghannam, 41191 Marks Drive: Objected for traffic reasons and there are too many churches in the area.
• Debra Yale, 41345 Singh Drive: Objected for traffic reasons and there are too many churches and the building is too close to the homes.
• S. Hettiaratchi, 41162 Marks Drive: Objected for traffic reasons, the area is too busy, and there are already two churches in this area.
• Antoinette Louis, 22000 Meadowbrook: Objected for reasons stated at the microphone.

Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing.

Member Wrobel asked about the church’s hours. Pastor Sexton said they meet on Sunday mornings and on Wednesday nights. Their congregation is about sixty to 65 people. The chapel seats 85. That requires 28 parking spaces. The church may expand in a couple of years. They hope to have an auditorium and a fellowship hall someday in the future. At most the auditorium would seat 225 people. His philosophy would be to start a second church if the congregation grew larger, in order to provide adequate pastoring of the people. He has already started additional congregations in Milford, Port Huron and Bay City. The full building would be 8,000-9,000 square feet. The fellowship hall would be built first and would be in front of the existing house. That house could be converted to a Sunday School and offices, perhaps, or it might be razed. The auditorium would replace the existing church building. At the time of the expansion, they would berm the north side of the site as required. The new plantings will go on the south side of the site.

Pastor Sexton said there are no renters in the home at this time. They might re-rent it to people who are conducive to the Gospel. Pastor Sexton said their purchase of this site is subject to this Planning Commission approval. The current owner has been taking care of the property. The pastor would take care of the site because it is a reflection of his Lord.

Member Wrobel thought that the Applicant seemed willing to address the pending issues. Mr. Spencer said that the additional screening provides 90%/80% opacity as required by the Ordinance. Mr. Spencer also said that the traffic was reviewed, and according to the threshold, a church requires a traffic study when they are greater than 20,000 square feet. This is only 2,000 square feet. This impact will be negligible. The parking lot lighting will be reviewed on the photometric plan. The lights will be shielded downward to keep the lighting on the property. There are no property splits proposed, and the City would not be in favor of a split, as the church would then need a variance for the smaller lot size. The future building plans will have to comply with every section of the Ordinance, including berming the south property line, or providing a substitute that would yield the same function. This is an existing building with minor changes, the Staff felt that what is there is appropriate based on the size use. The supplemental plantings will suffice.

Chair Cassis confirmed that if the church chooses to expand, that request will come before the Planning Commission.

Member Wrobel asked what amount of traffic is produced by the daycare. Mr. Spencer said there wasn’t any information on that, but the daycare traffic study threshold is 150 children, and this daycare probably only housed fifty children. Member Wrobel felt that this daycare probably yielded comparable traffic to what this church will yield. Mr. Spencer felt the neighbors’ concern was that a church is used on the weekends and at night, whereas the daycare is used during the day, when neighbors may be at work or school. If all the Meadowbrook churches let out at the same time, there will likely be traffic to contend with. However, with a church this small, the City isn’t even asking for turn lanes or driveway improvements. The Traffic Consultant could comment as well, as he was attending the meeting.

Member Wrobel could support the project as long as the landscaping issues are addressed. If this Applicant takes care of this item, he felt that the Applicant and the neighbors could both be happy.

Member Burke confirmed that the daycare would not be housed here any longer. Pastor Sexton thought they were closing their doors on June 15, 2007.

Member Burke felt that the neighbors’ issues were noise, traffic, screening and maintenance. It seemed like the Pastor was on top of all of these items. Member Burke supported the project.

Member Meyer asked whether the house would ever be used as a rectory. Pastor Sexton said no, no at this time. He said they may convert it to an office if it is feasible, and depending on the regulations. They are holding this idea in abeyance. They have to consider the economics of that project as well.

Member Meyer confirmed that Pastor Sexton agreed with the privacy issues voiced by the neighbors. Pastor Sexton said that he was aware that the trees were old and therefore his landscape architect is working on a plan using the appropriate materials. The swale is clogged at the entrance, so they will clean it and see if the water flow can be improved. He would add some additional pavement pursuant to the Fire Marshal’s request, and they will finish the uncoated asphalt already there. They will seal and repair the lot before restriping it. The additional asphalt will be built with the required slope.

Member Meyer agreed that Meadowbrook is a corridor for churches, which was part of the community’s planning process. He thought that outside of Christmas and Easter, there would not be a problem with cars or space for their parking.

Moved by Member Meyer, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Chair Cassis agreed to let other audience members speak:

Unidentified Female: Stated that the garage is set apart from the house and she wanted to ensure its use as a garage and not another use.

Chair Cassis felt that Pastor Sexton has the greatest of intentions for this site and his church. He asked the Pastor to reiterate his obligation to minimize noise, maintain the site, minimize the light pollution, and provide adequate screening. Pastor Sexton said they have specified the appropriate lighting for their lights. He stated that he knew he would have to come back if the church decides to expand. Pastor Sexton said that certainly he would, because they want to be good neighbors. He said that the landscape plans have not been reviewed, but he would make sure that the opacity requirements are met. He said they are a relatively quiet group of people. The noise analysis was completed, but they are getting one now from a certified sound engineer. They will comply with what is necessary. The garage is 1,000 square feet and needs a new roof, which they plan on doing. They will be using the garage for storage. They have chairs, tables, desks, etc. that need to be stored. Pastor Sexton said that they will contract their lawn service, and they will make sure that the lawn is mowed completely, either by the tenant and the contractor, or the contractor will do the entire site. Pastor Sexton said that they plan to complete their plantings in the summer, and they will start on the maintenance items once they have closed on the project and have occupancy. They will put the lights up and put the asphalt down and then they will begin the plantings.

Member Pehrson wanted to ensure that the church had enough parking. Pastor Sexton was confident. He said that the maximum congregation size is 85, and the Ordinance requires one space for every three people.

Moved by Member Meyer, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Chair Cassis told the neighbors that the church would have to appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals, so if they had any other concerns, they have another avenue through which they may voice their concerns. These neighbors will receive notices from the ZBA.

Consideration of the request of Tim Adams of Group 3, Inc., for Final Site Plan and Section Nine Waiver approval. The subject property is located in Section 16, south of Grand River Avenue, east of Beck Road, in the I-1, Light Industrial District. The subject property is 10.73 acres and the Applicant is proposing to build four multi-story medical/general office buildings.

Planner Tim Schmitt described the project. It is west of Heyn Drive and is zoned I-1 and master planned for Office. To the south is Central Park Estates, zoned RM-1. Also to the south is Remax, zoned OS-1and master planned for Office. To the west is Aladdin Heating and Cooling, zoned I-1. To the east is the Planet Neon building, zoned I-1 and master planned for Office. To the north is the Tony Angelo Cement site, zoned OST and master planned for Office.

There are wetlands on the site that run to the southeast and southwest. There are woodlands on the site.

The Applicant proposes four buildings that will front Grand River. The Planning Commission held the Public Hearing on September 13, 2006 but the project was postponed to study the issues. On January 10, 2007 the Planning Commission granted Preliminary Site Plan approval subject to the plan coming back for Final Site Plan approval to review the Stormwater Management Plan regarding this site and Remax. Since that time, it has been determined that the water issue is associated with the Remax engineering. Both the Wetland Review and the Engineering Review recommend approval of this plan.

The Applicant was asked to look into the variation of the façades. The four buildings were previously identical in composition and design. The Applicant has since made minor changes – modifying windows and adding accoutrements. The Applicant needs a Section 9 Façade Waiver for the cast stone along the bottom of the building. The Façade Consultant can discuss the plan if the Planning Commission wishes. The Applicant felt he received little guidance, there therefore no major amount of façade change was made.

Mike Powell represented the Applicant. He is the engineer and the designer of the site. The last item to address is the façade and the Planning Commission’s request for variation. The owners modified the plan slightly, but their overwhelming opinion by the three owners is they want the project to look unified. They are only proposing one sign for the site. They want a themed building motif. They did not want each building to look different from the other.

Member Avdoulos remembered that there is a landmark tree that was previously an issue. In the end, the Applicant was not interested in saving the tree. The Planning Commission looked at other things about the project. A lot of times there is a give and take. Because the Applicant wasn’t creative enough to implement the tree into the design, he decided to build four significantly sized office buildings with 1,049 feet of Grand River frontage. With four buildings of this size looking exactly the same, lined up without relief, the concern is that it would look out of place and strange. The traditional buildings look nice and are pleasant, but Member Avdoulos’ feeling is that once that look is multiplied, its character is diminished. It could look like a glorified strip mall because there is no geometry on the site. Nothing breaks up the plan. The Applicant wanted to create an office village, but the layout does not accomplish that feat. Member Avdoulos could not think of any development with identical buildings.

Member Avdoulos thought that identical buildings could create way-finding issues. The frontage is pretty major and will set the tone for the rest of Grand River. In lieu of having a similar character, they have the exact same character. Member Avdoulos was disappointed because in talking to the Applicant and the architect, they indicated they understood what the issues were. The Planning Commission conceded the loss of the landmark tree providing the Applicant would give his buildings more character. Member Avdoulos didn’t endorse the use of CMU on Grand River. He didn’t think the Applicant provided any give and take on this plan.

Member Avdoulos read the Group 3 letter, but he could not endorse that length of Grand River having the exact same façade. The buildings are spread apart by parking spaces, so they won’t even provide a row house appearance. He cited the Haggerty/Six Mile corridor as a blend of buildings that work together. He said the Applicant didn’t provide another example of buildings like these to prove his point that this is a good idea. Member Avdoulos said that the Planning Commission does not design buildings for Applicants; they should have looked for guidance from the Staff and Consultants.

Chair Cassis read from the previous minutes, wherein Member Avdoulos told the Applicant that the buildings should not look exactly the same. The site would have more character if each building had something of its own personality.

Member Wrobel thought the City gave up a lot when they gave up the tree, though he was willing to do so because the Planning Commission was looking for the Applicant make the buildings more appealing. This is a great looking building, but four in a row would be too much of the same. Mixing up a little bit would be better. Member Wrobel was hard pressed to approve this façade.

Member Meyer thought it was important to note that this is the main avenue in Novi. A brand new hospital is going up. Rock Financial is just down the road. These buildings will get a lot of exposure. They will make quite a statement about Novi. One reason a City has a Planning Commission is to ensure there are conscientious citizens looking out for the future of the City. Member Meyer is not an expert, but the key word that comes back to him is creativity. In other words, he thought the Applicant could have worked around the tree. The catch is, this new design is not creative either. It is a beautiful building in the picture, but he would like to see what it would look like on a quarter-mile stretch.

Mr. Larry Shew addressed the Planning Commission. He said that working with three owners is challenging. This is a condominium similar to other building sites in the area. Avalon has three identical buildings. A site across from Fountain Walk has identical buildings. They didn’t want to vary the buildings too much because they want the site to look like one project. Variation to the windows was made. They wanted to keep the brick the same. They didn’t want the site to look like four different projects. Mr. Shew said that the way to save the tree was to put the buildings way far back, with the idea of keeping the tree in a parking lot island. No one could guarantee this would save the tree. They were told that the odds of that tree surviving were pretty slim.

Member Meyer was glad to hear to that. Mr. Shew felt that it was very important to put the parking in the back. He didn’t know whether the City was asking for four different roof lines. Mr. Schmitt said there is an elevation sheet with all four buildings shown. Mr. Shew reiterated that it has been difficult to work with so many owners. Chair Cassis said that didn’t matter, and the Planning Commission has been very accommodating. A beautiful hospital is being built down the road. Other office buildings have gone through the process. Chair Cassis said that Mr. Shew did not want to be left out. Chair Cassis did not want to see a negative vote for this project.

Mr. Shew said he was open-minded, and he asked for specific direction.

Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth said that the Façade Consultant, Doug Necci, was present.

Member Pehrson didn’t want to try to redesign the site at the table.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

Member Avdoulos didn’t think the CMU was appropriate. Member Avdoulos asked Mr. Necci what he thought about the redundant nature of this site plan. Mr. Necci said the repetitiveness of the design would be noticed at any speed. He thought the design was the "basic envelope." The design shows a lack of imagination. This is a highly visible site on the main corridor in Novi. The buildings deserve more articulation. The footprint can stay the same, but Mr. Necci would ask the Applicant to look at the roof lines and the basic massing of the building. Using the same materials and colors should be enough to tie the buildings together.

Member Avdoulos cited some examples of buildings in Novi that were too redundant. He said he was disappointed in this submittal, perhaps because he was looking for a change to the roof lines, or variation of brick color, or something. He reiterated how visible this office park will be. Member Avdoulos was very pleased with how the Grand River corridor is shaping up, and he wanted this project to be an important addition to this transformation.

Chair Cassis thought that if the design was improved, it wouldn’t cost the Applicant more, but might bring him more rent money.

Member Meyer looked forward to supporting the project. He thought it would be wonderful. No one would have ever believed that Grand River would be the five-lane success story that it is today. He said Novi is one of the best cities in the country and a more creative design for this project is just another example of how the City is going to show that strength.

Mr. Shew asked if there was any way for one building with this façade to get underway. Chair Cassis said that was probably impossible. City Attorney Kristen Kolb said that the Planning Commission has to review the site as four buildings, not as four pieces.

Chair Cassis ensured the Applicant that their next review would be speedy. Chair Cassis asked the Applicant to bring a panoramic view of the four buildings when they return to the Planning Commission.

Consideration of the request of HHT Devco, LLC for a recommendation to City Council for Preliminary Site Plan approval for modifying the Twelve Mile Crossing at Fountain Walk Shopping Center. The subject property is located in Section 15, south of Twelve Mile, between Donelson Drive and Cabaret Drive in the RC, Regional Center District, on 67.2 acres. The Applicant is requesting a new entrance and revised parking facilities.

Planner Mark Spencer described the project. To the north are the Liberty Park Site Condominium, Lotus Bank site, and various office buildings. To the east are West Oaks I and 2 and the Doubletree Hotel. To the south are the ITC corridor, I-96 and the old Expo Center. To the west are vacant land, the Telcom Credit Union, a Residence Inn and the proposed Hilton Garden Inn. This property and part of the properties to the east are zoned and master planned for Regional Commercial. Other easterly sites are part of a planned retail development. North and west properties are zoned and master planned for Office. Liberty Park is master planned for multiple family and developed under a court order with an underlying zoning of R-A. Across the freeway is the Downtown West Master Plan designation.

This is a developed site and it contains no wetlands or woodlands.

The Applicant is requesting a positive recommendation of their Preliminary Site Plan for a new entrance at the intersection of Donelson Drive and West Oak Drive, revised parking facilities with a net reduction of 133 parking spaces, additional landscaping and an enhanced entrance treatment. All site plans for development in the RC District must be approved by the City Council. Twelve Mile Crossing at Fountain Walk is a 700,000 square-foot retail center located on 67.2 acres of land.

The Applicant proposes to construct three glass and slate, internally-illuminated piers inside a landscape island located near the entrance from Donelson Drive. The addition of an artistic entrance feature will enhance the entrance to this site. The three proposed features are seven-foot tall sand blasted glass cubes placed on four-foot tall slate bases. The bases and the gateway entrance walls exceed the allowable fifty percent slate permitted and they do not contain the required thirty percent brick. The Applicant is requesting a Section 9 Waiver of these requirements. Since the cubes are internally illuminated they are also considered light fixtures. These low level lights will not meet the City’s ninety degree cut-off requirement. Staff recommends that City Council waive this requirement since it is a low output decorative fixture. Mr. Spencer showed a picture of a similar structure in another city. The cubes are considered accessory structures and are required to meet the one hundred foot front yard setback requirement. The Applicant has agreed to push these structures back to avoid the need for a variance.

The Traffic Review asks the developer to redesign the intersection to eliminate left turn conflicts and to provide left turns from the site. The review also asks for better pedestrian connectivity from this site to the easterly Donelson sidewalk. Mr. Spencer showed a picture of the area in question.

The Applicant has agreed to redesign the intersection and push the island out of the required setback and addresses the traffic engineer’s alignment concerns.

The Applicant is proposing a sidewalk parallel to the entrance drive and will be asking City Council for a waiver of the sidewalk or pathway required along Donelson Drive. This project has about 350 feet of frontage on Donelson Drive. The Planning Staff supports this waiver if the internal sidewalk is connected to the existing sidewalk system on the east side of Donelson, and the Applicant provides an area for this sidewalk to be added in the future if it becomes necessary.

The Applicant does not propose any change to the loading areas. Truck movements should remain the same. The loading area appears to be adequately screened.

The City’s Landscape Architect found the plans to be in general conformance with the Ordinance, with two exceptions. A berm is required along Donelson. The Applicant is requesting a waiver and the City’s Landscape Architect supports this waiver because the elevation change, the proposed retaining wall and the proposed landscaping appear to adequately screen the parking lot. Street trees are also required along Donelson and the Applicant is proposing to place them adjacent to the entrance drive instead of Donelson. This Waiver is also supported as it will leave room for a future bike path along Donelson.

The Planning, Engineering, Traffic and Fire Department reviews all recommend the Planning Commission make a positive recommendation to City Council with the mentioned corrections and other minor corrections to be completed on the next submittal.

Chair Cassis asked about the glass feature. Mr. Spencer placed the picture back up for the Planning Commission to see. He said that oftentimes glass is used as an art form because it is appealing and makes a site more attractive.

Mr. Jim Ludwig represented the Applicant. This is Phase 3 of this shopping center renewal. Phase 1 is complete and Phase 2 is underway. The owner is very motivated. The actual logo for the shopping center has not been determined. Mr. Ludwig showed the façade board so that the Planning Commission could see the slate material. The Applicant believes the slate has a richer appearance and is a more proper element to use in this renovation. The wall will be designed with a variety of rectangular sizes.

Mr. Spencer told the Planning Commission that a revised motion sheet was provided to them which incorporates the responses provided by the Applicant.

Member Wrobel said the new entrance makes a lot of sense. From a practical standpoint, he is concerned about drivers who will use this entrance and will end up driving through the parking lot where there are pedestrians. Mr. Ludwig said that this new drive coming from West Oaks will bring the driver to the heart of the center. The new south drive will take the driver down to the Great Indoors area. Member Wrobel thought people may be more likely to drive the perimeter. It could force two-way traffic near the package pick-up area.

Member Pehrson confirmed with Traffic Consultant Steve Dearing that the design was acceptable to him. Mr. Dearing was satisfied. There is now a left turn lane heading toward Twelve Mile. The lane aligns with West Oaks Drive. The only thing that would have made Mr. Dearing happier would have been a roundabout, but he understood that one of the owners spent time in England and learned to dislike roundabout features.

Member Pehrson asked whether the new sign would need some type of variance. Mr. Spencer said that this application does not involve any signage. That is a separate permit process. The Applicant may possibly put a sign on the retaining wall. He didn’t know of a proposal for the islands. Mr. Spencer considered whether the cubes should be considered as signs, but in the end they were not considered as such. They are considered as art – gateway entrance accessory structures.

Member Pehrson was pleased to hear every Applicant this evening praise the Community Development Staff.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

Member Meyer complimented the Applicant for his premier site in Novi. He liked the ambience and beauty of the site. He was pleased the owner was trying to make the site more user-friendly and appealing.

Member Avdoulos agreed. This is a positive change for the site. He was surprised that the wall received a façade review. It is a nice thing, what is happening at this intersection. Mr. Dearing’s review was very nice. It hit all of the points. Lining up the lanes is integral. He suggested that the lane that goes to Kohl’s be fixed because it is a mess. Member Avdoulos asked if a roundabout would take up more space. Michael Marks of Giffels Webster responded that they considered a roundabout but there is a significant grade change between these sites and the roundabout would require a large piece of flat ground. Member Avdoulos said the proposed design has been handled nicely in light of that grade change. Member Avdoulos thought that Member Wrobel made some valid observations but hoped once drivers acclimate themselves to the new design they will maneuver the site effectively.

Member Avdoulos confirmed that the grade change is about nine feet in the front. Mr. Marks said that change is also being spread to the back. Member Avdoulos was pleased to see the fenestration with the retaining wall. He liked the glass art. It will act as a nice beacon. He supported the project.

Chair Cassis asked about the yellow wall facing the freeway. Mr. Ludwig said that with Phase 4, the owner is considering ways to repaint the center. They will not start with that wall but with one of the internal walls. Chair Cassis noted that he has heard many unflattering comments about that wall.

Chair Cassis was pleased to see these changes coming to this center. He credited the owner for trying to make a difference. These new features will give the center distinction. Mr. Ludwig said that several thousand square feet of shopping center are being torn down, but someday the owner hopes there is a need to rebuild. Chair Cassis hoped to see a revival for this center.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

There were no Consent Agenda removals.

There were no Matters for Discussion.

There were no Supplemental Issues.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Moved by Member Gutman:

The meeting adjourned at 10:29 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

WED 05/30/07 LEGAL TRAINING WITH CITY ATTORNEY 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 17, 2007 _____________________________________

Date Approved: May 23, 2007 Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date