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

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

Absent: Michael Lynch (Excused)

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

Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth led the meeting in 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 told the Planning Commission that each Planning Commission member would be receiving their own copy of the Public Hearing responses, and together the Commission and Staff can determine whether this is a worthwhile effort that should be continued.

City Council postponed the Best Buy consideration on March 17 to provide the Applicant time to submit additional information.

The Oakland County Coordinating Zoning Committee reviewed the Master Plan for Land Use and gave Novi a compliment on their plan. They determined that the plan is not inconsistent with surrounding communities.

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

2. TEMPERFORM CORPORATION ADDITION, SP06-54

Consideration of the request of Temperform Corp., for a one-year Preliminary Site Plan extension.  The subject property is located in Section 23, east of Novi Road, south of Trans-X Drive, in the I-2, General Industrial District.  The subject property is 4.884 acres and the Applicant is proposing to construct two additions to the existing Temperform Corporation buildings.

3. KARIM BOULEVARD OFFICE BUILDING, SP04-21

Consideration of the request of Minasian Development Corporation for a one-year Final Site Plan extension. The subject property is located in Section 24, west of Karim Boulevard, south of Grand River Avenue in the OS-1, Office Service District. The subject property is approximately 2.99 acres and the Applicant is proposing a speculative office building.

4. BROCKDALE ESTATES, SP06-43

Consideration of the request of D & S Contractors, for a one-year Preliminary Site Plan extension. 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.

Consideration of the request of Northern Equities Group for a one-year Preliminary Site Plan extension. The subject property is located in Section 1, west of Haggerty Road, north of Thirteen Mile, in the OST, Planned Office Service Technology District. The Applicant is proposing the construction of roads and utilities for the second phase of the office park.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of K and C Holding Company, LLC, for Special Land Use approval. The subject property is located in Section 23, at the northwest corner of Ten Mile and Meadowbrook Road in the B-3, General Business District. The subject property is approximately 11.0 acres and the Applicant is proposing to occupy an approximately 2,000 square foot tenant space located at 41774 West Ten Mile, tenant space #17, in the Novi-Ten Shopping Center.

Planner Kristen Kapelanski described the Snap Fitness request to locate into an existing tenant space in the shopping center. The property is zoned B-3 and master planned for Local Commercial. The north and west properties are zoned RM-1 and master planned for Multiple Family Residential. The properties to the south are zoned are R-4 and B-1. The properties to the east are zoned B-3, B-1 and RM-1. The south and east Master Plan designations include Single Family Residential, Local Commercial and some Office.

The location of natural features is not a concern at this time.

The use of this building as an indoor recreational facility is listed as requiring a Special Land Use approval in the B-3 district. The Planning Commission should consider the findings of Section 2516.2.c of the Zoning Ordinance. The Staff has not identified any major concerns regarding this request and recommends approval.

The main Special Land Use requirement with respect to this use in the B-3 District is the submittal of a Noise Impact Statement. The Applicant has requested a Planning Commission Waiver of this requirement, as the proposed use will not add any noise-generating rooftop equipment to the shopping center, and no other measurable noise is expected. Staff notes that all activities will be indoors, and supports this request for the Waiver.

Keith Rochon represented the Applicant. This is a small, neighborhood exercise facility. This is a 2,000 square foot space, as opposed to a 60,000 square foot Powerhouse or Bally’s Gym. The noise generation will be minimal. This site will make use of health, cardio and fitness training equipment and this business is designed for people who want to get in, work out and be done. This small use caters to the local residents. There are no showers and just a small changing area. Research shows that people prefer to prep and shower at their own homes. There will be no modifications to the exterior of the building.

Member Meyer said two Public Hearing responses were received; both endorsed the project:

No one from the audience wished to speak so Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing.

Member Wrobel confirmed that the target customer count for any one time is between 15-20 exercisers. There will be at least a manager and one personal trainer on duty; Mr. Rochon is seeking to employ five personal trainers. This is designed to be a 24-hour operation, though local ordinances and evaluation of actual foot traffic will truly determine the hours.

Member Wrobel noted that the corner of this parking area is where the parking is most necessary and he wondered whether this use would create a greater parking problem. Ms. Kapelanski said Staff did not anticipate a problem because this is such a small facility.

Member Pehrson agreed that there would not be a substantial noise impact.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

Chair Cassis thought this was a feasible use for the site. Chair Cassis called for the vote.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request WG Novi, LLC, for a recommendation to City Council for consideration of a Planned Rezoning Overlay, in conjunction with Rezoning request 18.679. The subject property is located in Section 36, east of Haggerty Road, north of Eight Mile, west of the Interstate 275 off-ramp. The Applicant is proposing to rezone the property from FS, Freeway Service, to B-3, General Business District. The subject property is approximately 1.17 acres and the Applicant is proposing to demolish the existing Big Boy restaurant and construct a Walgreens Pharmacy with a drive-thru lane located at 20800 Haggerty Road.

Chair Cassis confirmed with City Attorney Kristin Kolb that his being a distant cousin to one of the people involved in this project did not impact his consideration of the request. There is no direct financial benefit for Chair Cassis so Ms. Kolb and the Planning Commission did not see a problem with Chair Cassis considering this request.

Planner Kristen Kapelanski described the project. This 1.17-acre property is located at the northeast corner of Haggerty Road and Eight Mile. The request to rezone the site would change the zoning from FS, Freeway Service, to B-3, General Business with a Planned Rezoning Overlay. This property is currently developed with a Big Boy restaurant. To the north of the subject property is a McDonald’s restaurant. To the west are Haggerty Road, a Chili’s and the High Pointe Shopping Center. To the east is the I-275 off-ramp and MDOT right-of-way. To the south is Eight Mile and across the road is a hotel in Northville Township. The site is bordered by FS, Freeway Service zoning to the north, OSC, Office Service Commercial across Haggerty Road, MDOT right-of-way to the east and B-3, General Business across Eight Mile in Northville Township. The Master Plan designates Community Commercial uses for the subject property and the property to the north. To the east is the I-275 right-of-way, the properties across Haggerty Road are master planned for office and the Northville Township Master Plan designates the properties across Eight Mile for Commercial use.

There are no natural features on the site.

The Applicant is requesting to rezone the property to B-3 with a PRO. He appeared before the Master Plan and Zoning Committee on July 10^th, 2007 and received preliminary comments. The Community Development Department supports this request, as it is consistent with the Master Plan and the existing character of the area as a commercial and office corridor.

The Traffic Review supports the rezoning and provided no major comments. The Engineering Review also indicated no major issues with the proposed rezoning. Regarding the site plan, there are minor Traffic, Engineering and Fire items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

The Planning Review recommends approval as the Applicant has met the requirements of Article 34 for the Concept Plan and PRO Agreement. There major conditions in the proposed PRO Agreement are outlined in the Planning Review dated March 3, 2008. Major conditions include a limited list of Permissible Uses, the development of a landscaped plaza with a "Welcome to Novi" sign on the southwest corner of Haggerty Road and Eight Mile, and the installation of connector sidewalks. The Applicant has been asked to identify which specific sidewalk links in the City they are willing to install as part of this PRO Agreement.

There are also a number of conditions relating to the building and parking setbacks, and parking requirements. The Applicant proposes a gross floor area of 13,360 square feet, thereby yielding a 69 parking space requirement. The Applicant has provided 49 spaces and has asked that this Ordinance deviation be included in the PRO Agreement. The Applicant requests that a Section 9 Façade Waiver be included in the PRO Agreement. As noted in the Façade Review, the south and west elevations exceed the permitted amount of cast stone. Staff supports this request. The Applicant is also requesting that six Landscape Waivers (as listed in the review and on the motion sheet) be included in the PRO Agreement. It is Staff’s recommendation that the Planning Commission consider whether the requested Waivers are a reasonable alternative toward improving the overall appearance and function of the site.

Mark Drain of Rogvoy Architects and Tom Zimmer represented the Applicant. He offered to answer any questions.

Mr. Zimmer thanked the Planning Commission and the Master Plan and Zoning Committee for their help. He has been working diligently with MDOT regarding the easement and right-of-way issues. The plan has gone through several revisions in order to meet the spirit of the Ordinance. He asked the Planning Commission to consider the public benefits Walgreen’s has proposed. He provided the Planning Commission with illustrations of the proposed plaza. Mr. Zimmer said that that he hasn’t completed his sidewalk review and therefore was not quite ready to provide the sidewalk information to the City for the PRO Agreement.

Mr. Zimmer said that he has met with MDOT many times. He noted that two corners of his building have been chamfered in order to stay out of the MDOT easement. The front area also houses a federal highway easement. The federal government has opposed any planting in the front area. There is one minor encroachment relating to this plan: the drive-through window canopy overhang encroaches the air space about four feet. MDOT has agreed in principle to allow this encroachment. There are pending maintenance items that he is discussing with MDOT.

Member Meyer received a Public Hearing response on this request:

No one from the audience wished to speak so Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing.

Member Wrobel, a member of Master Plan and Zoning Committee, has been part of previous discussions on this project. He understood that the City is interested in keeping this corridor commercial in nature. He thought the rezoning request requires a benefit for the City for its allowing this change. He did not see a benefit. There are Walgreens within miles of this site, and several other pharmacies are already in the area.

Member Wrobel was also concerned that a four-year old store in another location is already closed. He was ambivalent about supporting this project as part of a rezoning because he didn’t see a benefit, though he would support the request if the appropriate zoning was already in place.

Member Avdoulos is also a member of the Master Plan and Zoning Committee, and he remembered when the Applicant first approached them. He didn’t have an issue with the request even then. This intersection will be busy forever; this use will not change that. The success of any use on this corner cannot be predicted. He thought that the local hotels would help support this use. This is a high-profile corner and Walgreen’s is a household name. Based on the market research that Walgreen’s performs, he expected that this Applicant believes the use can work, and the proposal offers some amenities that might actually help to frame the corner. The one difficulty with this site is the corner is already developed fully, and it will be difficult to add the appropriate landscape to enhance the site even further.

Member Avdoulos noted that sidewalks have been encouraged in this area. Many people do use the bike path that runs along this area. He asked Landscape Architect David Beschke to comment. Mr. Beschke responded that this small site does have problems in providing more landscape. The foundation requirements have been removed; there is pavement all around the building. Downsizing the building is the only way the Applicant will be able to provide more green space. Mr. Beschke thought that perhaps the Applicant could add more landscaping to the right-of-way area. Mr. Beschke said the Planning Commission is charged with determining whether the use of the site warrants these waivers as part of the PRO Agreement.

Member Avdoulos said the drive-through area must be free and clear of landscaping. There is a one-way passage around the building. Mr. Beschke thought that the land used for the passage could not be reduced in light of the Fire Department requirements. Technically, the Ordinance requires landscape where there is no access to the building. There is practically access around the entire building, and the Applicant almost meets that requirement.

Member Avdoulos asked about the existing island at the Haggerty exit. Mr. Beschke understood that island will be maintained. Member Avdoulos noted that the Traffic Consultant thinks this use will have less of an impact on this corner than the existing Big Boy. The left-turn out is an issue, but that is what Big Boy has now, so Member Avdoulos wasn’t sure that there was anything that the Planning Commission could change about this design.

Member Avdoulos asked the Applicant to address the green initiatives that were previously discussed. Mr. Zimmer said that Walgreen’s is a green company, and their inhouse architect spends her entire time on green issues. This is a matter of economics. They look at all the possibilities – insulated roofs, insulated floor slabs, LED lighting, LED exterior lighting, etc. This is a low profit-margin retailer, so every savings they can find, they make use of it. This is also a commercial use that requires a well-lit parking lot. The store must be lit 12-14 hours per day. Walgreen’s is as conscious about this as anybody. Mr. Zimmer said the problem with grass roofs is that the payback is not quick. At this point, many of the green initiatives don’t make economic to them or any other retailer. As these items become practical, they will be put into use.

Member Avdoulos said that when this plan goes before City Council, Walgreen’s may be questioned about these efforts again. Member Avdoulos believed that the Planning Commission would review the Preliminary Site Plan if and when City Council approves the PRO Agreement. Member Avdoulos could support this plan. This is a difficult site, and he felt the Applicant has stuck to the game plan that has been developed between the City and Walgreen’s. Member Avdoulos wasn’t keen on so many waivers, but sometimes that happens. He encouraged the Applicant to continue to work with the City, especially the Landscape Architect and the Façade Consultant, because this site is visible from all four sides.

Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth said the Applicant is requesting a Section 9 Façade Waiver for materials in excess of what is allowed. The "Welcome to Novi" sign area has generously been offered by this Applicant, but the City will likely use the Chili’s corner for this intersection. That might change once City Council reviews this PRO request.

Ms. McBeth also said that the Applicant is asked to identify the sidewalk locations they are offering to install prior to their going before City Council.

Member Burke first thought that this proposal was an excessive use. Once he reviewed the project however, he agreed that a Walgreen’s would likely be less intense than the current Big Boy. He thought the Applicant has worked diligently with MDOT to make the traffic pattern work. This use will not have a negative impact on its neighbors. Member Burke thought that a convenient drugstore could be beneficial for the hotel guests in the area. He thought this was a much better looking gateway store than other options that might by considered for the corner. He said it was incumbent upon the Planning Commission to find a way to make this site work and improve the corner at the same time. He did not think the word "precedent" had a place in this consideration. Each project stands alone. He supported the plan and felt this corner would probably always be malfunctioning.

Mr. Zimmer wished to add that privately, he has been working with McDonald’s on a cross-access easement. This will aid the drivers in their egress maneuvers. Walgreen’s does not have "peak times." Traffic is local and mostly those who are already on the road anyway. At worst, this corner will not be burdened. At best, the cross-access could move drivers further away from the intersection for their exiting the sites. Ideally, this area would be well-served with a service drive that would reduce all of the curb-cuts.

Member Burke said that is the spirit of cooperation that the City likes to see among neighbors.

Member Meyer said the key to him is the aesthetic appeal of the use that will eventually be on this corner. He did not think Walgreen’s was a box of bricks. He wished Walgreen’s well. He didn’t think the power to change the traffic problems at this intersection lay in the hands of Walgreen’s. He wondered if delivery trucks might block the traffic circulation. Mr. Rogvoy said that it could happen, but this site has already given notice to their headquarters that a smaller truck must service this store.

Moved by Member Meyer, seconded by Member Burke:

Member Pehrson asked if the sidewalk issue was adequately covered in the meeting. Ms. McBeth said that the Applicant has been researching the process, and Mr. Spencer has provided them with the sidewalk map. She just encouraged the Applicant to again, complete their research prior to going before City Council.

Member Pehrson asked whether the rendering provided at the meeting would in fact be the façade built on this site. Ms. McBeth said that it would be, but she cautioned that the Planning Commission could postpone granting the Section 9 Waiver if they were uncomfortable.

Mr. Zimmer said that only two sides of the building have cast stone. The other two sides are brick. Member Pehrson asked whether the third side could also be made of brick. Chair Cassis asked for an explanation of the façades. The Applicant showed the rendering and explained which elevation faced which road. He said there is a ten-foot high retaining wall with scrub brush and trees that will block the one façade from the expressway ramp.

Member Pehrson said that this is a landmark intersection and the building did not scream "landmark" to him. The Applicant agreed to work with the City on an acceptable façade for that particular wall. Member Pehrson asked whether the maker of the motion would add that the Applicant redesign the building so, "that the elevations facing I-275 and the north property line carry the same architectural value as the other two sides." Member Meyer and Member Burke agreed. The Applicant said that he would agree to the extent that he could. He would consider changing the massing of the building. There is not an opportunity to add windows to this area.

Member Avdoulos suggested that the aesthetics on the other façades could be pulled around to the façade in question. Member Avdoulos agreed with Member Pehrson’s concern. Member Meyer added that since this is a gateway property, the City should go the extra mile and make this request for an upgrade. A previous request was made for a project at another key intersection (Grand River and Beck).

Member Burke wondered if the façade information should be removed from the motion until another design is presented. City Attorney Kristin Kolb said that the addition of cast stone to the façade in question may require an additional waiver. She thought that by the time the PRO Agreement is finalized this façade issue must be determined so it can become part of the Agreement. One option is to send everything else to City Council or the Planning Commission can postpone the entire consideration and ask the Applicant to resubmit. This issue has to be resolved before the Agreement is finalized.

Chair Cassis offered an advisory comment to the Applicant regarding this issue. If all the pieces could be provided to City Council the Applicant will have clear sailing. The Applicant said that only 25% of the façade can be cast stone, and the design uses more like 33-36%. He could add more columns to meet the Ordinance. He still wished to keep the waivers in the motion, and if he needs another waiver he was willing to come back to seek another. If procedurally this could be done so as not to set the Applicant back, he would be happy to present a new elevation with new calculations.

Chair Cassis asked Member Pehrson if he would support the Applicant working with Staff on the Section 9 issue. Member Pehrson said that it would have to become part of the PRO Agreement and City Council will see the rendering prior to approving the Agreement. The Applicant still has more work to do.

Ms. McBeth suggested that the motion provides a general impression of the Planning Commission’s desires. She said the Staff can continue to work with the Applicant. If the end result requires more waivers, then the plan will have to be modified again or come back for additional action. It may be easier for the Applicant to meet the requirements of the Façade Ordinance. She recommended that the flexibility of the design be left in the hands of the architect.

Ms. McBeth said the plan could be postponed so the Planning Commission sees the façade first. Member Pehrson said that wasn’t necessary, but he wants the façade to be shown to the City Council. He wants the building to look like what the City approves. Member Pehrson stated emphatically that the new façade must be provided to City Council. Ms. McBeth said the Planning Commission will also see the façade at the time of Preliminary Site Plan. She said that they weren’t bound by an exact drawing, just the sense that the drawing is generally meeting the Planning Commission’s intent. That is what the City is looking for now, and the Planning Commission can have further review of the façade when it comes back for Preliminary Site Plan approval.

Member Avdoulos did not have issues for the Section 9 Waiver for the percentages. If the two elevations are maintained, and the other two elevations are enhanced, he felt that was what the City was looking for. The City does not want a drastic deviation from what has been presented.

Member Meyer asked the Applicant to remember that if the Novi Welcome Sign is placed on this corner, the landscape should be designed such that it won’t overgrow the sign. Mr. Beschke added that the City is currently designing the Novi Welcome Sign and if this corner is selected, the sign will fit there nicely and be landscaped appropriately.

Chair Cassis said the Walgreen’s at Ten Mile and Novi Road has always looked nice. The landscaping always looks good and fresh. Generally Chair Cassis agrees with the Staff. He has great respect for the previous mayor, but he noted that less attractive, higher intense uses can go on this site while zoned as FS. This is a prominent corner and he knew that the traffic would be constant. He said that Walgreen’s traffic does not seem intense. He noted that many Big Boy restaurants have changed hands and the uses of the buildings have changed. He thought this would be a good corner for Walgreen’s. He preferred to see this site redeveloped under the constraints of a PRO Agreement. The Planning Commission cannot turn down a project because of the excess of similar uses in the area. He supported the motion.

Member Avdoulos agreed that without a PRO, any intense use could be proposed on this site. He noted that other sites in this area (Holiday Inn Express, Taco Bell) are redeveloping. The positives of this plan far outweigh any negatives associated with the plan.

The Public Hearing was opened on Planning Commission’s consideration and recommendation to City Council for an Ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 97-18, as amended, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance, to amend Chapter 28, Signs, of the City of Novi Code to update, clarify, and provide new substantive regulations concerning the placement of signs within and throughout the City.

Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth explained that the changes are related primarily to the changeable copy signs. There are some other clarifications as well. The City Attorney and the Ordinance Review Committee have worked on this amendment. Staff recommends these changes.

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

Member Pehrson asked whether the changes were under consideration because of Paradise Park. Ms. McBeth responded that she did not know what the impetus was. The change to the text would allow a changeable sign to change up to sixty times per hour. There is an additional sentence that states the image is to be static, and the change from one screen to the next must be instantaneous without special effects. This further differentiates a changeable sign from an animated sign.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

Member Meyer was concerned about #24 on page five, wherein a motor vehicle sign measuring more than two square feet in size on a vehicle or trailer is discussed. He has seen several places in the City where business owners have strategically parked vehicles with strategically-placed advertising thereon. Member Meyer noted that there are many business owners who push the sign Ordinance to its limits. Member Meyer thought the motor vehicle sign problem should be reviewed and a text amendment should be considered to address this issue.

Member Wrobel agreed that the vehicle advertising needs to be addressed. He asked whether the changeable sign language was setting low and high parameters. Ms. McBeth responded that she thought any sign that changed copy more than one time per minute was actually considered an animated sign and is further regulated. Member Wrobel did not see any concrete maximum numbers on the changeable or animated signs language. He recommended that numbers be added because it would clarify the intent.

Ms. McBeth said that changeable signs must not change more than one time per minute. Animated signs change more often. Ms. McBeth said the assumption is that animated signs are continually changing.

Member Burke wanted to confirm that signed vehicles are considered signs, regardless of where they are parked (outside of the business or elsewhere in the City). Ms. McBeth said she would prefer that the City’s Code Enforcement Officer, Alan Amolsch, answer this question, either at an upcoming meeting or in correspondence to the Planning Commission. Ms. McBeth noted that the vehicle language has not changed in this amendment.

City Attorney Kristin Kolb said that there is nothing wrong with a business driving around in a logoed vehicle conducting business. A vehicle that is driving around with signage strictly for advertising’s sake is a different issue. Chair Cassis noted that the IRS requires signage on vehicles considered as a business use.

The Public Hearing was opened on Planning Commission’s consideration and recommendation to City Council for an ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 97-18, as amended, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance at Section 2406, Planned Development Options, Section 201, Definitions, and 2505.14, off-street parking requirements to allow for modifications to allow additional uses within the RC District with a PD-2 Option.

Planner Kristen Kapelanski explained that these proposed changes are to Section 2406 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planned Development Options. In order to facilitate the review of minor changes to an approved site plan, Section 2406.4.e is proposed to be modified to allow administrative review of those plans that propose minor changes to an existing site. This is similar to Ordinance review standards in other districts. Uses permitted using the PD-2 Option would also be expanded. Indoor recreation uses would be added to broaden the category that is already present, which includes health clubs and racquet clubs. Fast food and fast food carry-out establishments would also be included as a permitted use. A limitation on the distance allowed between fast food restaurants is proposed, and the amendment also places an increased emphasis on traffic circulation standards. A minimum site size of 1.5 acres has also been proposed. However, upon further examination it has been determined that this limitation would exacerbate the situation at the existing McDonald’s Restaurant, which is presently the only fast food establishment within areas permitting the PD-2 option. The existing lot size of the McDonalds is 1.45 acres. It is the opinion of Staff that it would be best not to create a non-conforming lot. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission reduce the minimum lot size associated with fast food establishments in the PD-2 District to 1.25 acres. Lastly, the front yard setback for the PD-2 Option would be reduced from seventy-five feet to fifty feet. Ms. Kapelanski said this text amendment does not deal with off-street parking.

Ms. Kapelanski said the City is not aware of any other fast food restaurants coming forward. The Twelve Oaks McDonald’s would like to rebuild, so this Ordinance amendment is being presented and will accommodate the restaurant’s redevelopment of their property.

Chair Cassis opened the floor for public comment:

• Paul Nystrom, Dykema Gossett, Legal Counsel for McDonald’s: Mr. Nystrom supported the amendment and hoped for a positive recommendation. The current restaurant is planned for redevelopment on their 1.31 acre site. The reduced setbacks are also essential for this redevelopment.

Chair Cassis asked about the size of the proposed new building. Jeff Chase from McDonald’s said the proposed building is a bit smaller than the existing building; there will be a scaled-down play place.

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

Member Burke noted that the redevelopment of the Twelve Oaks complex was very pleasing and he supported the redevelopment of the McDonald’s as a change consistent with the overall upgrade of the regional center area. The restaurant is seeking to update its facility and Member Burke supported this text amendment.

Moved by Member Burke, seconded by Member Avdoulos:

The Public Hearing was opened on Planning Commission’s consideration and recommendation to City Council for an Ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 97-18, as amended, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance, Article 3004, "Temporary Special Exception and Temporary Special Land Use Permits," to amend and add provisions relating to temporary tents for outdoor uses, to amend the standards of review for administration by the building official, and to add portable on-site storage devices, and also Article 3100, "Board of Appeals," and Article 3006, "Public Hearing" to address recent amendments to the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act and to clarify certain review standards.

Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth said there were three parts to this amendment. The Planning Commission does not review these sections of the Ordinance too often, as the information contained therein are primarily administered by the Building Official.

The temporary erection of tents for special events has been addressed in this proposal. The recommendation is to limit these events to fewer than one hundred people, and a tent can be erected only once per six months for a period of five days. City-sponsored events, athletic events, private parties, temporary not-for-profit carwashes, garage sales and yards sales are exempt. The Fire Marshal and Building Official both review certain safety issues related to tent gatherings.

Ms. McBeth said that Section 7 provides standards for portable on demand storage (PODS) containers. The recommendation is to limit these PODS to residential properties and for a certain period of time. The Building Official would be responsible for approving PODS, time extensions, etc.

Ms. McBeth said the third amendment addresses cleaning up language for compliance with the Michigan Zoning and Enabling Act.

The City Attorney and the Staff have reviewed these changes and recommend that the Planning Commission forward them to City Council with a positive recommendation.

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

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

Chair Cassis asked for clarification of the temporary use changes. Ms. McBeth responded that the Building Official has oversight of the temporary uses, and it has been determined that the Ordinance did not adequately address temporary tent installations. Chair Cassis thought that streamlining processes is always appropriate.

Consideration of the request of General Development, for revised Final Site Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 9, north of Twelve Mile, east of West Park Drive in the OST, Planned Office Service Technology District. The subject property is approximately 3.5 acres and the Applicant proposes to build a 9,781 square-foot mezzanine to the building.

Planner Karen Reinowski described the project. General Development is proposing a revision to the Final Site Plan for Novi Corporate Campus #7, which received Planning Commission approval in August 2007.

The revisions to the site plan include the addition of a 9,781 square foot mezzanine with minor façade modifications, primarily to provide additional windows for the proposed mezzanine office space. The changes are proposed to accommodate the building’s tenant, Permacel, an automotive supplier. The total square footage of the building is proposed to be 57,312 square feet. For reference, the building was approved with 47,547 square feet on the Final Site Plan that was stamped for approval in November 2007.

The site is north of Twelve Mile, east of West Park, at the end of Dylan Drive. The site is zoned OST, as are the parcels to the north, west and south. There is I-1 zoning to the east. The Master Plan Future Land Use map designates Light Industrial uses. There are no natural features reviewed for this proposal.

The Planning Review noted that sufficient parking is provided to accommodate the proposed use, and two additional doors were provided on the building, with sidewalks to the parking lot.

The site already received a Section 9 Waiver when the building was originally approved by the Planning Commission. The revised façade proposes a 1% decrease in the quantity of split-faced block on the northern façade, bringing it into slightly greater conformance to the Ordinance standard. The eastern façade, which was also included in the previously-granted Section 9 Waiver, remains unchanged. Therefore, it is recommended the Planning Commission reaffirm the previously-granted Section 9 waiver with the slight modification to the façade.

The Fire Department Review did not specify any issues.

Larry Stoby represented the Applicant. He said the building is used for prototype work up, though he didn’t know specifically what the mezzanine would be used for. It will not be for heavy uses, but perhaps an ancillary use. He didn’t know the how many employees will work at the site. Permacel manufactures equipment used in the automotive industry. Ms. Reinowski interjected that the mezzanine yields about 9,300 square feet of office space.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Gutman:

Moved by Member Avdoulos, 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 Wrobel:

The meeting adjourned at 9:06 PM.

MON 04/07/08 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 04/08/08 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:00 PM

THU 04/10/08 MASTER PLAN & ZONING COMMITTEE MEETING 7:30 PM

WED 04/16/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 04/21/08 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 04/30/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 05/12/08 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 05/13/08 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:00 PM

WED 05/14/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 05/19/08 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 05/26/08 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

WED 05/28/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 06/09/08 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 06/10/08 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:00 PM

WED 06/11/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 06/23/08 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

Transcribed by Jane L. Schimpf Signature on File

Customer Service Representative Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date

May 23, 2008

Date Approved: May 28, 2008