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

Also Present: Barbara McBeth, Deputy Director of Community Development; Kristin Kolb, City Attorney; Kristen Kapelanski, Planner

Absent: Member Greco, Member Gutman, Member Larson, Member Meyer (all excused).

Member Baratta led the meeting attendees in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Moved by Member Baratta, seconded by Member Lynch:

Motion to approve the March 23, 2011 Planning Commission agenda. Motion carried 5-0.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

There was no correspondence.

There were no Committee Reports.

Deputy Director McBeth reported that on March 21, 2011, the City Council approved the first reading of a text amendment that the Planning Commission had recently considered. The proposed text amendment would allow the Planning Commission to approve façade waivers in the TC and TC-1 Districts and to approve site plans and special land use permits on parcels less than 4 acres in the RC District.

The US Census Bureau has released the data for Michigan cities and local communities collected for the 2010 Census. There is information presented at the table this evening to report on Novi and Novi’s peer communities. This Census data shows that there was an increase in population in the City of Novi over the last ten years. Between 2000 and 2010 there was a 16.5% increase in population. The population of Novi now stands at 55,224 people.

Deputy Director McBeth noted there are some graphics presented, as well. Planner Kapelanski compiled a chart showing a comparison of the 2000 data and the 2010 data. The population of Novi increased from 47,386 to 55,224, a 16.5% increase in that time. There is also greater diversity in terms of racial characteristics. African American residents now comprise 8% percent of the total population of the City and Asian residents account for almost 16% of Novi’s population.

There is also an increase in the total number of housing units. About 19,649 housing units were reported in the year 2000 and 24,226 were reported in the year 2010, an 18.9% increase. Housing starts had dropped at the end of 2007-2008 but Community Development Department records showed that there was an increase in new housing starts for 2010: a 65% increase in new housing starts from the prior year.

Deputy Director McBeth stated an email and information that was shared from the City Managers office has also been distributed showing the 2000 population and the 2010 population for the largest 34 communities in the State of Michigan. Novi is the 28^th largest community in Michigan, up from 33^rd largest as measured in the 2000 Census. If townships, which are a different form of government, are excluded, Novi is the 23^rd largest city in the State of Michigan.

The colored graphic is from the Detroit Free Press. Novi is in the southwest part of Oakland County and for the most part, this graphic indicates 20% growth or higher in the north and west parts of the City of Novi. It shows the southeast part of Novi having modest population losses. Information on neighboring cities has also been included. The graphic shows that Lyon Township increased in population as well as the City of South Lyon. Also Northville Township to the south had large percentage increases. The most comparable is Commerce Township just to the north, which had an overall increase in population in that same timeframe of 15.4%. Commerce has a smaller total population than Novi. Wixom had an increase of just under 2%, Walled Lake had a 5% increase, Lyon Township had a 31.6% increase, but Lyon Township also has a smaller population than Novi at 14,545. Northville Township had an increase of 35%, the City of Northville had a loss of 3.6% and Farmington Hills had a loss of 2.9% in the ten year timeframe.

The 2010 population of the Detroit, Warren and Livonia region is almost 4.3 million people, an area that basically covers southeast Michigan. The population of the United States by State has also been included. The City Manager has highlighted the 25 states that actually have a smaller population than the Detroit, Warren, and Livonia metropolitan area, pointing out that the southeastern Michigan region has a population larger than quite a few states.

There were no items on the Consent Agenda.

Public hearing for Planning Commission’s recommendation to the City Council for consideration to amend the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance at Article 24, Schedule of Regulations, Section 2400, schedule limiting height, bulk, density and area by Zoning District; In order to include provisions to allow for additional heights on properties adjacent to limited access freeways.

Planner Kapelanski stated that staff is proposing this text amendment. It would allow buildings on parcels in certain zoning districts adjacent to freeways to be constructed up to 65 feet in height when additional building setbacks are provided. There are already provisions to allow additional height near the freeways and several zoning districts including the OST, OSC, EXO OVERLAY, and the TC and TC-1 Districts. This amendment would add the RC, I-1, and I-2 Districts to that list and would offer better consistency along freeway rights-of-way and also align with one of the implementation strategies in the Master Plan for Land Use.

Planner Kapelanski described what is currently permitted in the OST District. Buildings in the OST District north of Grand River Avenue may be increased in height from 46 feet up to a height of 65 feet. Three areas are also permitted additional building height up to 115 feet - that is where any portion of a building is located with 1,200 feet of the right-of-way line of a freeway, any property located east of M-5 and north of Thirteen Mile Road, and on any OST property west of Cabaret Drive, north of I-96 and south of Twelve Mile Road. Staff does recommend maintaining the height standards in the OST District but has re-worked the language to help clean up some of the formatting and make the text more clear.

There are also ordinance changes proposed for the RC, I-1 and I-2 Districts to allow additional building heights up to 65 feet if additional setbacks are provided. These are all areas that would allow additional building height and they are all adjacent to freeway rights-of-way. Staff is proposing that only office, research and development facilities and similar uses in the I-1 and I-2 Districts be permitted this additional building height. The manufacturing, warehousing and any other outdoor uses in these districts would not be permitted additional building height, nor would properties adjacent to residential districts.

Planner Kapelanski noted other districts adjacent to freeway rights-of-way that would not include the additional height provisions are the B-2, EXPO, Conference District, TC and OSC Districts. Buildings in the EXPO, TC and OSC Districts are already permitted to have additional building height. The intent of the B-2 District is not consistent with the additional height. Building height is regulated by a special provision in the Conference District and that was not addressed as part of this ordinance amendment. Also included in the packet was a map illustrating the existing zoning adjacent to freeway rights-of-way. The most informative map would be the permitted and proposed building heights map which identifies those parcels that would be allowed to have the additional height if the amendment were accepted.

Chair Pehrson opened the public hearing. As no one in the audience wished to speak and there was no correspondence, Chair Pehrson closed the public hearing.

Member Cassis asked about the Triangle Development proposal for a portion of Main Street. He asked if that development was four stories tall and are there additional provisions in the TC-1 District that allow buildings up to 65 feet.

Planner Kapelanski stated the map provided in the packet only shows the height regulations for the OST District, which is shown in purple and blue and what would be affected by this amendment is shown in the green.

Member Cassis stated that he thought the former Triangle Development site was still zoned TC-1 and what is the permitted height in that district?

Planner Kapelanski responded she thought it was 65 feet.

Member Cassis stated that he thought it was higher.

Planner Kapelanski stated that the proposal might have been for a slightly higher building but she would have to check the previous plans and approvals.

Member Baratta asked Planner Kapelanski about the purpose of increasing the height. Is that to make those properties more competitive or attractive for businesses?

Planner Kapelanski answered that she thought that would be one effect of the ordinance. Staff was mostly concentrating on the Implementation Strategy in the Master Plan that recommended looking at the ordinance to determine where additional height would fit. Staff also noted that many of the districts adjacent to the freeways already allow buildings up to at least 65 feet. This would really bring those other properties in line with what is already is permitted.

Member Baratta stated that the purpose of the amendment seems to be that it will provide for height consistency along freeways and to make those properties them more competitive.

Motion made by Member Lynch and seconded by Member Baratta:

Moved by Member Lynch, seconded by Member Prince:

There were no Consent Agenda removals.

There were no Matters for Discussion.

There were no Supplemental Issues.

There was no one wishing to speak at Audience Participation.

Moved by Member Lynch, seconded by Member Cassis:

The meeting adjourned at 7:16 PM.

Transcribed by:

Juanita Freeman, Account Clerk, March, 2011

Date Approved: April 13, 2011 Signature on File_____________________________

Richelle Leskun, Planning Assistant