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

Present:  Members John Avdoulos, Victor Cassis, Andrew Gutman, Michael Lynch, Michael Meyer, Wayne Wrobel

Absent: Members Brian Burke (excused), Mark Pehrson (excused)

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

City Attorney Kristin Kolb led the meeting in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Moved by Member Wrobel, seconded by Member Gutman:

No one from the audience wished to speak.

John Kuenzel of the Echo Valley Homeowner Association sent a letter to the City on October 11, 2007. These homeowners would like greater weight placed on the opinions of those who are most affected by any Master Plan change.

The Master Plan Vision Fair will be held on October 30, 2007.

Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth said that the second reading of the text amendment adding instructional centers to the TC and TC-1 districts was approved. The Main Street Phasing Plan was approved, and City Council asked that Phase 5 come before them for review. The first reading of the new language for temporary special exception and temporary special land use permits was approved.

Consideration of the request of Interphase Land Development, LLC for a one-year Preliminary Site Plan extension. The subject property is located in Section 32, west of Beck Road, between Eight and Nine Mile roads in the R-A, Residential Acreage District. The subject property is approximately 14.91 acres and the Applicant is proposing to remove an existing home and accessory buildings to construct a ten-lot site condominium for single family residential dwellings.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Meyer:

1. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT 18.678 Public Hearing on the request of DeLorean Associates, LLC for a recommendation to City Council for rezoning of property in Section 24, north of Ten Mile, west of Haggerty Road, from OS-2, Planned Office Service, to OS-1, Office Service District. The subject property is 6.57 acres.

Planner Kristen Kapelanski described this rezoning request that would take the site from OS-2 to OS-1. It is master planned for Office. The site currently houses a 23,327 square-foot medical office building. To the north is a Chrysler dealership, zoned B-3 and master planned for Community Commercial. To the east is a Jaguar Dealership, zoned B-3 and master planned for Community Commercial. To the west is Brookside Medical, zoned OS-1 and master planned for Office. To the south are a Comerica Bank and Holly Hill Professional Village, zoned OS-1 and master planned for Office. There are no wetlands or woodlands.

This rezoning will facilitate the expansion of the parking area. The Applicant would like to add more handicapped parking and a patient drop-off area on the west side of the building. Closer parking will better serve the needs of the elderly patients. The Staff supports their request. It is consistent with the Master Plan and consistent with the existing character of the area. It would not create any non-conformities. It would be zoned consistent with its neighbors. The Traffic Review supports the request. The Engineering Review has no major issues with the request.

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

Later in the evening, Member Meyer asked that correspondence in support of the rezoning from Alli Fayz of Pheasant Run Plaza, Inc. be noted in the minutes. Mr. Fayz stated that the rezoning would be beneficial to the community.

Mr. Delorean explained that this change would allow them to place parking closer to the building that would not make it necessary for the elderly patients to walk in the driveway in order to get to the building.

Moved by Member Lynch, seconded by Member Gutman:

Member Wrobel asked about the leasing sign on the site. Mr. DeLorean said there are still vacant spaces in the building. Member Wrobel asked about the undeveloped western side of the site. Ms. Kapelanski said it is possible for that area to develop. The OS-1 and OS-2 offer similar uses, but the setbacks are very different. Member Wrobel was concerned that OS-1 allows banks and OS-2 does not; he thinks the City has a gluttony of banks, and he didn’t want to exacerbate that situation.

Mr. DeLorean responded that about 60% of the vacant land is a retention pond. They believe that they can someday build another 22,000 square-foot medical building with the rezoning. With the OS-2 zoning, this vacant land is virtually unbuildable.

Member Avdoulos explained that when the Master Plan and Zoning Committee reviewed this request, they bantered about the idea of the Applicant just seeking a ZBA variance for the setback and parking issues. However, a granted variance is not a sure thing. Because the request will benefit the site’s development and it matches the adjacent zoning and Master Plan, the Committee found this request to be appropriate.

Chair Cassis agreed that this is the proper zoning.

Consideration of the request of L&A Architects for Preliminary Site Plan and Stormwater Management Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 36, north of Eight Mile and east of Haggerty Road in the FS, Freeway Service District. The subject property is one acre and the Applicant is proposing to demolish and reconstruct a 2,825 square-foot restaurant.

Planner Kristen Kapelanski described the project. The property is zoned FS and master planned for Community Commercial. The property is bordered by the Orchard Hills detention basin to the north (zoned FS and master planned for Community Commercial), I-275 right-of-way to the east, Speedway to the south (zoned FS and master planned for Community Commercial), and High Point Shopping Center across Haggerty Road to the west (zoned OSC and master planned for Office). There are no wetlands or woodlands.

There are several ZBA waivers that the Applicant will be seeking. The Planning Review did not recommend approval of this plan for the following reasons: The western screening needs to be increased to better screen the loading zones. Four stacking spaces are required prior to the menu board; only three are provided. The site is underparked by nine spaces according to Section 2505 of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff believes that the Applicant should be held to the strictest standards of parking, given the high turnaround of fast food customers and the risks posed by unparked sites. The Applicant can meet the 45 parking spaces if they reduce their setbacks and reduce the greenspace along Haggerty Road. Then, the Applicant will need a ZBA for a reduced front yard parking setback and a landscape waiver, since the greenbelt is not at the required standard. This alternative plan would add parking spaces to the front of the building. This plan also doesn’t meet the 47 required spaces, but it is closer. This alternative plan has not been reviewed yet because it was just turned in. Ms. Kapelanski said that if the Applicant would like this plan reviewed they would need to submit it as a revised Preliminary Site Plan and allow for the appropriate review time.

The Applicant is seeking three Landscape Waivers. Two waivers are for the berm requirements along Haggerty Road and the I-275 right-of-way. They are seeking a waiver for the deficient foundation landscape area. Staff supports all three requests. The Traffic Review, Engineering Review, Façade Review and Fire Department Review all recommend approval with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

Joe Zabolotny of L&A Architects represented the Applicant. He told the Planning Commission that the submittal of the plan with more parking spaces was really just a talking point and that he was seeking approval of the original plan.

Member Avdoulos thought the existing Taco Bell was 2,377 square feet. Mr. Zabolotny said the kitchen of the new building is slightly bigger. It will have three cook lines. The dining area will have 63 seats. The original site has 41 parking spaces and now the larger building has three less spaces. The requirement is actually 47, so the proposal is 20% deficient. Seventy square feet is the entry, which could be negated. Member Avdoulos would like to see the parking at least stay the same. This is a safety measure. Further, there are a few spaces that will be blocked in when the drive-through is busy. Member Avdoulos would prefer to see the four spaces in the front added back to the plan. Ms. Kapelanski also stated that four cars must be able to stack after the car at the menu board, and this plan only allows for three cars to stack.

Mr. Zabolotny said this is the smallest Taco Bell footprint that is built. It is designed to handle the volume more quickly (three cook lines) in order to move the drive-through lane. He said there is an additional window in this drive-through design. The national average for Taco Bell is that 70% of their business is transacted through the drive-through. The "blocked-in" spaces will be designed for employee vehicles. The back side of the site requires a retaining wall. There are easements on the back end of the site pertaining to underground gas lines. The outlet structure for the northerly detention pond comes across this site and dumps out of a culvert onto this site and then the water flows north. The setbacks on the property prevent the four parking spaces from being added back onto the front of the site without a variance.

Member Avdoulos said that because the dining area is smaller, and the kitchen is being enlarged to facilitate the drive-through business, he was comfortable with the menu-board stacking. He hoped to alleviate the Applicant’s need to seek a ZBA variance for the parking shortfall; he asked if the seating capacity could be considered. Ms. Kapelanski did not think that the Applicant could provide less parking without a ZBA variance. The Applicant would have to show a hardship as to why the variance should be granted.

City Attorney Kristin Kolb said that the Ordinance is not concrete in this district, and the Planning Commission could make a finding that this is a drive-through restaurant as opposed to a fast-food restaurant. This would allow the Applicant to use a different calculation in determining the site’s parking needs.

Mr. Zabolotny said that the Ordinance describes a drive-through restaurant as a business that principally orders and receives from a motor vehicle and is consumed off-premises. Food is consumed on the premises with a fast-food restaurant.

Chair Cassis interjected that Taco Bell is indeed a fast-serving restaurant, and that perhaps a menu would help the Planning Commission consider this plan. Mr. Zabolotny explained that most Taco Bell food is not "cooked" but "re-thermalized."

Ms. Kapelanski said that the Building Department placed the occupancy at eighty people – seated and queued in line. The parking standard requires one space per two seats, and one space for each employee. This yields a need for 37 parking spaces. This is close to the 38 being provided. Member Avdoulos was still worried about spaces eleven and twelve being blocked in. Ms. Kapelanski said the Traffic Review had no problem with those spaces, but encouraged them to be designated for employee parking. There are other proposed parking areas that would have to be reviewed to ensure that drivers would be able to pull in and out.

Landscape Architect David Beschke said that the parking in the front does have setback issues, but it is an existing condition of the site. Right now there is a total of about 14 feet of setback and there should be twenty. There is a lot of room for landscaping. Member Avdoulos would recommend adding the parking spaces and eliminating two parking spaces where another stacking space could go. This would yield forty spaces. It would be a compromise.

Member Wrobel thanked Taco Bell for reinvesting in the City. He agreed that the business is mostly drive-through. The second window will not take care of the back-ups at the light. The site also has to deal with the cut-through gas station traffic. The southbound traffic trying to make their way onto Haggerty must also be addressed. He thought the light-timing should be reviewed. He was unsure how he felt about adding to the traffic in this area – did it make sense to improve the site to allow more customers to move through the order line more quickly – only to be stopped by the traffic light?

Member Meyer asked the Applicant to address the screening issue. Mr. Zabolotny responded that the Staff did not feel the plan provided enough screening for the loading zone. There is a three-foot berm with plantings. They are adding shrubs and trees. The loading zone is behind the building. There is a shrub and tree line between the building and I-275. They do not plan on touching those existing plants. Staff believes the screening should be increased to the west, not to the east near I-275. Mr. Zabolotny believes that they have already provided enough screening. They will provide a berm along Haggerty, except for near the access drive and the sight triangles. There are two existing evergreen trees near the corner, and Taco Bell doesn’t want to kill the trees by adding a berm around them.

Mr. Beschke supported the berm waiver on the front because the plan is well-thought out and saves the two large trees. The I-275 side is screened by a good clump of trees. Existing vegetation can be saved by waiving the berm requirement.

Chair Cassis asked about the relationship between Taco Bell and Speedway. Mr. Zabolotny responded that there is a cross-access easement for through traffic, though they would like to close it and make more parking spaces. Chair Cassis agreed with Member Avdoulos’ comments about adding the parking spaces near Haggerty. Chair Cassis felt that the business is more likely to have more need for stacking than for parking, so he would like to see the stacking be addressed. Taco Bell is hesitant to reduce the size of the building to address the parking deficiency because this design provides for maximum efficiency.

Mr. Zabolotny said that the lot size is adequate, but the odd things [gas line easements] happening on the back side of the property preclude him from making use of the entire site.

Chair Cassis was pleased with the proposal. It will bring a new, fresh building to the City. The parking may be deficient, but it is deficient now. He would encourage the Applicant to put the parking back in front of the building.

Member Avdoulos asked whether the Planning Commission could make the determination that this business is a drive-through. Ms. Kolb said that would be acceptable. That said, the parking requirement would be 37, but the number would be re-checked. Member Avdoulos would like the four spaces added to the front of the building, and spaces eleven and twelve should be removed to accommodate the stacking lane. He would also eliminate the two spaces that can get blocked in. This would yield 38 spaces. This new building will start completely fresh. Moving the store up would negatively impact the stacking lanes.

Ms. Kapelanski said that the Planning Commission can postpone this consideration to allow Taco Bell time to address the comments made at the table. There will be a need for a reduced front yard setback, the reduced greenbelt area and the berm waiver. Or, the Planning Commission can approve this plan and list all of the concerns in the motion, but this comes with a risk that additional waivers or variance may be further required anyway.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Lynch:

Member Avdoulos explained that his overall greatest concern is that the safety be addressed on the site. He understood that the plan presented was designed to need the least amount of waivers. This is a very tight site. He suggested that the four spaces be used for employee parking. He said he would support any waiver needed for the parking to return to the front of the site. If the Applicant could get the parking up to 37, Member Avdoulos would be satisfied.

Chair Cassis explained that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee needs an alternate again to serve in those instances when any of the other members are not able to attend.

Moved by Member Wrobel, seconded by Member Avdoulos:

Moved by Member Lynch, seconded by Member Gutman:

There were no Consent Agenda removals.

The Vision Fair is scheduled for October 30, 2007 at the Novi Civic Center Atrium, from 6:30-8:30 PM.

The Committee briefly discussed the article written by City Attorney Tom Schultz, and the Secrest Wardle-sponsored December 5, 2007 meeting regarding RLUIPA.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Moved by Member Lynch:

The meeting adjourned at or about 8:23 PM.

TUE 10/30/07 MASTER PLAN VISION FAIR 6:30 PM

MON 11/05/07 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

WED 11/07/07 PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION 6:00 PM

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

MON 11/12/07 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

TUE 11/13/07 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 11/14/07 MASTER PLAN AND ZONING COMMITTEE MEETING 7:00 PM

Transcribed by Jane L. Schimpf, November 14, 2007 Signature on File
Date Approved: November 28, 2007. Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date