Meeting called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairperson Capello.

PRESENT: Members Capello, Cassis, Churella, Koneda, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, and Richards

ABSENT/EXCUSED: Canup

ALSO PRESENT: Planning/Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Engineering Consultant David Bluhm, Director of Planning and Community Development and Staff Planner Beth Brock, Senior Environmental Specialist Aimee Kay, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke, City Attorney Tom Schultz

Chairperson Capello announced there were several changes to the agenda:

• The deletion of Matters for Discussion Item #2 - American Planning Association National Conference.

• Matters for Discussion Item #1, moved to Consent Agenda Item #3 – (to read) "Erickson Retirement Community will be scheduled as an Item #1 under Mattes for Discussion at the first Planning Commission Meeting of February." (The applicant proposes that the Planning Commission amend the Master Plan and rezone to allow for a higher density. Applicant will also present to the Planning Commission why they feel senior housing is needed at the proposed location due to its current density.)

• The addition of Consent Agenda Item #4 – To send to the Implementation Committee the question of the benefit or detriment of sub-street requirements for subdivision or condominium projects.

• The addition of Matters for Consideration Item #3 – Sending a Resolution to the Novi City Council relative to the individual city council contact with various staff and Planning Commission.

Moved by Mutch, seconded by Piccinini, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Agenda as amended.

Yes: Capello, Cassis, Churella, Koneda, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

None

None

Chairperson Capello announced there were 2 items on the Consent Agenda.

Approval of the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of November 15, 2000 and December 6, 2000. He asked if there were any corrections to the minutes?

Member Koneda requested the removal of the December 6, 2000 minutes from the consent agenda. He stated there was no outcome for Pointe Park Condominiums.

Member Mutch stated the completion of his thought to be added in place of "(tape ends)" to read "he would like to see a connection provided to the north." On page 17, he stated the replacement of the word portion with motion.

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of November 15, 2000 as amended.

Yes: Capello, Cassis, Churella, Koneda, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

This proposed light industrial spec. building is located in Section 4, north of West Road at the northwest corner of Hudson Drive and Ryan Court. The 1.86 acre site is zoned Light-Industrial District (I-1). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval.

Al Valentine, architect of GAV Associates, Inc requested Preliminary Site Plan Approval. He addressed the parking issues. He stated the property is located on the corner with the focal point being the corner with a corner entrance. He felt they needed parking in the front of the building to allow pedestrians to have a more direct walk to the entrance.

Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant stated his review letter dated December 27, 2000 focused on the parking issue. The ordinance states that property in the Light Industrial District (I-1) less than 2.0 acres does not permit parking in the front yard of exterior side yard. He explained the site has the equivalent of two (2) front yards with the front yard and exterior side yard. He stated that according to the city ordinance, they are not permitted to have the parking presented in the site plan. He stated the alternative would be to have the building shifted forward and the parking placed behind or on the side of the building. Mr. Arroyo stated that the ZBA would be the only body to grant the applicant relief. Due to the ordinance issues, he did not recommend approval. However, he stated if the ZBA were to grant a variance, the other issues could be resolved at Final. He added that at Final they would need to meet the new exterior lighting standards.

In regard to traffic, Mr. Arroyo recommended approval in his letter dated December 19, 2000. He stated there were minor internal issues related to the site that could be addressed at Final.

David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant recommended approval in the December 14, 2000 review letter. He stated a storm sewer serves the site, a sedimentation basin, permanent water quality basin for the entire industrial development south and east of the proposed site. The storm water is handled at the off-site North/Novi Regional Basin downstream. He stated the site is completely served by utilities. In addition to the number of comments to be addressed at Final, Mr. Bluhm recommended approval.

Linda Lemke, Senior Landscape Architect, recommended approval in her review letter dated December 13, 2000. She required additional Evergreen trees along the north and western property line to screen loading areas. Additional shrubs under canopy trees were required along the right-of-way to meet the opacity requirement. Ms. Lemke requested different species replace the Austrian Pine and American Dogwood. She stated in addition to the number of items to be addressed at Final, she recommended approval.

Chairperson Capello announced he has received a letter from Michael W. Evans, Fire Marshal for the City of Novi Fire Department, which states that the above plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended. He received a letter from Doug Necci of JCK stating that a Section Nine Façade Waiver is not required.

Member Mutch asked Mr. Arroyo if there were any secondary access issues?

Mr. Arroyo answered that when the overall project was approved, there was a requirement for emergency secondary access to the north. (Hudson Drive continues north and swings west into the City of Wixom). He stated the applicant is required, as part of the already approved first phase, to make a gravel connection to Wixom with gated entrance for secondary access. He explained if the second portion of Beck North is approved, then full time access would be paved and provided.

Member Mutch referred to the interconnecting lots in the Beck West Development. He asked Mr. Arroyo if he would recommend this?

Mr. Arroyo stated this would be a desirable connection that he would encourage. He explained that the neighboring property may have difficulty obtaining the secondary point of access to the building.

Member Mutch asked if there was a specific location or would there be a requirement for Final?

Mr. Arroyo stated he would like to look at it at Final. He stated the typical location would be along the rear parking isle. (The parking isle farthest to the rear lot line.) He added this location would enhance truck maneuver ability allowing them to back into a loading area.

Member Mutch clarified if the applicant was showing potential expansion of the building on the site?

Mr. Arroyo answered, yes. He stated there is an area where the building that could potentially expand.

Member Mutch asked if those potential issues had been explored?

Mr. Arroyo stated on a conceptual level, it appeared to be feasible. He stated the parking and drive system is being constructed around it. He added if they provide the appropriate setback of the building from the location of the drive, (to provide clear site distance around the corners), he did not foresee any major issues.

Member Koneda asked Mr. Arroyo regarding the potential addition of the second building. He clarified if the plan included another corner building on the opposite side?

Mr. Valentine stated it would be a mirror building with the exception of the corner entrance. He stated there would only be one (1) entrance.

Member Koneda asked if it would be an expansion of the building or a second building?

Mr. Valentine answered it would be an expansion with one (1) owner.

Member Koneda commended the driveway spacing for exceeding the requirements for the speed. He stated in the future he would like to have the rear tied in a future stub tree connection. He stated that he could support a ZBA variance for front yard parking because the parking setback would be forty (40) feet, along with the green space and planting in the front of the building to provide screening.

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Piccinini, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval to Sun Tec Building SP 00-63 subject to the granting for the variance for front yard parking by the ZBA, adding the stub road connection to the rear and subject to all of the conditions and recommendations of the consultants

Chairperson Capello commented that when the stub is placed, there would not be control of whether or not the applicant would allow neighboring traffic.

Mr. Arroyo stated at the Final a cross access easement is provided that would allow the applicant to maneuver onto the neighboring properties. He added that this is how it has been handled in previous applications.

Chairperson Capello stated if he was the tenant, he would be concerned of the traffic in relation to the times of the day from his neighbors.

Mr. Arroyo stated that the interconnecting of the lots is becoming the trend with the smaller industrial properties. He stated he is not aware of any problems.

Mr. Valentine asked if it was a gate connection?

Mr. Arroyo answered no. He added that it would be open. He stated that typically with Light Industrial District (I-1) heavy traffic is not generated. He added that he had not had complaints from the users and they are typically smaller businesses. He commented that the connection was primarily for maneuvering and helps everyone involved.

Chairperson Capello asked if there was a requirement in the ordinance?

Mr. Arroyo did not recall it being required by ordinance.

Chairperson Capello asked what would occur if the future neighbor did not provide the applicant with the easement?

Mr. Arroyo stated there would most likely be a gate constructed across as part of the site plan.

Chairperson Capello asked how the easements were granted?

Mr. Bluhm stated they are private agreements. He stated it would be a confirmation or copy of a private agreement between the two (2) parties.

Chairperson Capello asked Mr. Valentine if he was open to provide this?

Mr. Valentine answered yes. He stated the Sun Tec owners would also agree to provide this.

Yes: Capello, Cassis, Churella, Koneda, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: none

This proposed restaurant building is located in Section 17, north of Grand River Avenue and west of Beck Road. The site is zoned Community Business District (B-2). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval.

Gary Jona, president of Whitehall Real Estate Interest, appeared on behalf of Advent Partners Limited Partnership, a development entity of Providence Hospital and Medical Centers. He stated Applebee’s Restaurant is a family oriented, casual dining grill. He felt that it successfully fit into the vision and exacting standards of Providence. He stated the architecture is integrated to create and meet the zoning requirements. He added that this category leader would contribute to the neighborhood shopping center enhancing the entire project.

Mr. Arroyo informed the applicant of the new exterior lighting standards that would need to be addressed on the Final site plan. He stated the outdoor service area required a roof, for it not to be considered outdoor storage. If this was not provided, the applicant would need to have a variance for outdoor storage from the ZBA. Mr. Arroyo recommended approval.

In regard to traffic, Mr. Arroyo recommended approval.

Mr. Bluhm recommended approval in the review letter dated January 2, 2001. He stated the infrastructure is in place to service the building with utilities.

Ms. Lemke recommended approval in her letter dated January 2, 2001. She stated there were three (3) items that would need to be provided at final. 1) The canopy trees in the end islands should be limbed up to eight (8) feet in height. 2) Sugar Maples need to be adjusted to avoid the sanitary line on the west side of the building. 3) Add additional shrubs under Honey locust trees on eastern edge of the site.

Chairperson Capello announced he has received a letter from Michael W. Evans, Fire Marshal for the City of Novi Fire Department, which states that the above plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended. He received a letter from Doug Necci of JCK stating that a Section Nine Façade Waiver is not required.

Member Mutch commented that he would like the applicant to provide a short sidewalk connection from Grand River Avenue through/around the berm.

Ms. Lemke stated that she and Mr. Jona planned to visit the site to review the landscape in the spring due to the deficiency. She stated a sidewalk could be worked in due to the many gaps in the berm.

Chairperson Capello asked the applicant if they would have any problems preventing them from constructing a roof over the service area?

Pete Koutelas, of Applebee’s corporate office, stated that they were not understanding what needed to be roofed.

Mr. Arroyo referred to the site plan to designate the area. He stated there are coolers and a variety of service related components to the building stored here. He explained that this area would constitute as outdoor storage with only the wall. Therefore, he stated the area would need to be covered with a roof and enclosed to be considered within the building.

Mr. Koutelas stated the three (3) rectangles at the bottom of the site plan are walk-in coolers with a roof membrane installed over them. He stated the walk-in and dry storage have a roof.

Chairperson Capello asked if it was a structured roof or if the component itself had a top membrane?

Mr. Koutelas answered it would only be the cooler with the top membrane.

Chairperson Capello stated he would need a structural roof over the coolers.

Member Cassis advised the many difficulties that come with a cooler with a membrane. He stated there could be leakage in the winter along with high maintenance. He advised the applicant to provide the roof.

Mr. Arroyo encouraged that there was a lot of flexibility to constructing the roof. He added that it needed to be part of the structure of the building.

Mr. Jona explained that a standing seam metal roof could be attached with a slight slope for drainage. He felt this would be an appropriate solution and it would match the other used metals of the structure.

Mr. Koutelas asked if the standing seam would cover the entire trash enclosure area?

Mr. Arroyo stated that the dumpsters were not required to be enclosed.

Mr. Koutelas stated that the surrounding walls are ten (10) feet in height. He felt it would be reasonable to eliminate the membrane roof and install a standing seam.

Chairperson Capello did not feel it was necessary for the applicant to return to the Planning Commission. He felt the details could be worked out with a meeting with the consultants. He added that they needed to avoid sending the applicant to the ZBA for a variance.

Member Richards asked if the applicant would be able to provide a sidewalk from the landscaping to Grand River Avenue?

Mr. Jona stated the current the plan was to construct a bike path along Grand River Avenue. He felt with the assistance of the consultants, the sidewalk could be incorporated. He added that they would need to ensure that it would not impact the landscaping.

Ms. Lemke added that there were several holes in the landscaping and therefore, she did not foresee any difficulty.

Moved by Richards, seconded by Cassis, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval to Applebee’s Restaurant West Market Square SP 00-67 with them putting in a sidewalk as indicated by Member Mutch, landscaping approval by Ms. Lemke subject to the other consultant’s conditions and recommendations, and working with Rod Arroyo and Doug Necci to put a roof over the outside storage area.

Yes: Capello, Cassis, Churella, Koneda, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

Member Koneda asked if Ms. Lemke and the applicant were planning on reviewing the entire site, the location of the new drainage collection basin across the street?

Ms. Lemke answered, yes.

Member Koneda commented that the landscaping looked very deficient on that side.

Ms. Lemke ensured that they would be visiting the site.

Member Koneda commended the developer with the design of the entrance to the site.

Chairperson Capello read the proposed resolution:

"The Novi Planning Commission strongly recommends that the Novi City Council adopt the following resolution relative to restricting individual City Council members interference with Planning Commission decisions and business other than directive of the City Council body as a whole an individual City Council member shall not contact, communicate or interfere with the Planning Department, Planning Department Staff, City Administration, Planning Commission Consultants, the Planning Commission or individual Planning Commissioners relative to any issues before or coming before the Planning Commission for review, approval, discussion or recommendation or as to any issues related to involving or influencing such matters."

Chairperson Capello stated he was informed a similar text is included in the City Council goals for the upcoming year. Therefore, he felt it would be appropriate to forward this proposed resolution to be discussed with that City Council goal.

Member Nagy asked if the City Council was setting a goal to receive a resolution from the Planning Commission?

Beth Brock explained that one (1) of the goals of the City Council is to set a structured process for themselves to communicate.

Member Mutch understood the issues involved that brought forth the resolution. However, he did not support the breadth of the resolution. He felt that there were concerns that needed to be addressed and hoped these could be addressed at the time of the future joint City Council meeting.

Member Churella felt the proposed resolution was a positive step. Although he did not recall any occurrences, he recognized the possibility of the undo pressure that could be placed on the consultants.

Member Piccinini agreed that that proposed resolution was a good policy. She did not feel it was currently being abused, however, she recognized the need to have the policy in place.

Moved by Piccinini, seconded by Churella CARRIED (5-2): Motion to send on the resolution read to City Council.

Member Cassis asked the Chair for permission to withdraw his participation with this issue.

Chairperson Capello granted member Cassis’ request. He clarified the resolution was not intended to be indicative to the cities’ consultants or staff. He did not think the consultants were being swayed. However, he did not feel it was appropriate to have the City Council contact the consultants, planning staff or administration regarding issues that come before the Planning Commission and may or may not continue to appear before City Council. He felt it was obvious that they were in contact in attempt to influence the decisions of the consultants. He added that although the Planning Consultants did not complain of these events occurring, he was aware of some Council members that contact City Administration, Planning Consultants and Planning Staff.

Member Nagy felt the situation should be handled by speaking to the Mayor, being that he is the head of City Council. She was not certain that the City Council would understand what the directive was regarding because they had not been informed of the situation.

Chairperson Capello disagreed. He believed that the City Council would understand the directive and the situation.

Member Nagy felt that the City Council would respond by telling Planning Commission members not to come before City Council or the ZBA to influence decisions.

Chairperson Capello stated at the Implementation meeting, it was suggested to amend the bylaws to not permit Planning Commission members to go before the City Council or ZBA to influence decisions.

Member Koneda did not agreed with the exact wording of the proposed resolution. However, he did feel it was important to address the issue with City Council. He felt the City Council appointed the Boards and Commissioners empowering the members to do a job and should demonstrate the faith in those members to fulfill the obligations. He felt this topic needed to be discussed as well as the treatment of Boards, Commissioners and City Staff. Although the City Council may chose to not act on the issue, he felt it would at least present the Planning Commission’s view of the issue. He expressed his support.

Yes: Capello, Churella, Koneda, Piccinini, Richards

No: Mutch, Nagy,

None

None

None

Moved by Nagy, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 8:30 p.m.

Yes: Capello, Cassis, Churella, Koneda, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

________________________________

Sarah Marchioni - Planning Assistant

Transcribed by: Christine Otsuji

February 15, 2001

Date Approved: February 21, 2001