The meeting was called to order at or about 7:30 p.m.

Present: Members Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Paul

Absent: Members Papp (Excused), Ruyle (Attending MSP Conference), Shroyer (Attending MSP Conference), Sprague (Excused)

Also Present: Barbara McBeth, Planner; Tim Schmitt, Planner; Lance Shipman, Landscape Architect; Ben Croy, Civil Engineer; John Martin, City Attorney

Member Avdoulos led the meeting in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Markham:

No one from the audience wished to speak.

There was no correspondence.

Member Markham stated that on the previous night the Master Plan and Zoning Committee met and set meetings for Wednesday, October 22, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. and Tuesday, October 28, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the proposed Links of Novi and associated properties rezoning. These are open meetings.

Member Markham also thanked the staff and citizenry for the success of the September 29, 2003 Master Plan Citizen input meeting. She said that more meetings such as this will be held, as well as a Public Hearing on the Master Plan Update. The completion date is set for June 2004. She encouraged people interested in the process to contact the Master Plan and Zoning Committee or the Planning Department.

Member Kocan said that the Implementation Committee is currently working on "Maximum Number of Parking Spaces" and "Beautification and the Identification of Intersections for the Program." She said that the Novi Road Corridor Plan and the Grand River Corridor Plan would be incorporated into the plan upon which the Implementation Committee is working. Their next meeting is Thursday, November 13, 2003 at 6:00 p.m.

Member Kocan said that she contacted the City Council and informed them that her experience with the Woodlands Review Board was that they met twice monthly from spring through fall to accommodate two cases per meeting. She asked them to consider whether asking the Planning Commission to function as the Woodlands Review Board was the best utilization of their time. She asked them to consider whether it should be changed from a review board to a committee. She noted that she was aware of some citizens who have expressed interest in serving on the Woodlands Review Board. Member Kocan said that the City Council did not approve the transfer of the woodlands review at their last meeting, as they are looking for interested citizens to come forward. If the search is fruitless then they will again consider using the Planning Commission in this capacity.

Chair Nagy reminded the public that all sub-committee meetings are open to the public. She said that Member Kocan’s comment about the Woodlands Review Board was a valid one, and that she too, knew of citizens who would be interested in serving. She said at worst, the process could be relegated to another Planning Commission sub-committee.

There were no presentations.

There was no Consent Agenda.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Northern Equities, for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan, Storm Water Management Plan, and Woodland Permit. The subject property is located in Section 12 on Cabot Drive between Twelve Mile and Lewis Drive in the OST (Office Service Technology) District. The Applicant is proposing a two-story brick, 61,426 square foot speculative office building.

Planner Tim Schmitt located the property on an aerial photo. He said this building is continuing the established pattern already found in the park. He reminded the Planning Commission that Building IV received Preliminary Site Plan approval at the previous meeting. This property and the entire area are zoned OST and master planned for Office. There are three parcels along the south side of Twelve Mile that are zoned B-2 and B-3 and master planned for Community Commercial.

Mr. Schmitt said that this building’s elevation is virtually identical to the previous four buildings. The Planning Review indicated the Applicant has provided a solution to address Section 2517 which states that every parcel must have frontage onto a road in the City. They have provided frontage on Cabot Drive. This parcel is unique in that it is somewhat landlocked by the Detroit Edison property to the east. The other issue the Planning Department has is the property boundary lines; the Assessor’s Office must establish and record property lines prior to Stamping Set approval. This is the standing procedure for this development – as buildings come online the Applicant carves out each parcel’s boundary.

The Wetlands Review indicated that an administrative permit is recommended for approval, with some clarification needed at the time of Final Site Plan. The Woodlands Review indicated that the plan is recommended with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. There are 43 trees being removed from the site, and 41 trees being replaced. The Applicant’s plan is to pay into the tree fund. The Landscape Review indicated approval with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal to address issues raised by the new Landscape Ordinance. The Traffic Review indicated minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal, most notably the Applicant’s requirement to have an access easement to the property to the south. This Applicant also owns that property and therefore the Planning Department is comfortable with the proposed location of this connection. The Engineering Review indicated approval with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. There was no comment from the Fire Department. The Façade Review indicated minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

Mr. Matthew Sosin, Northern Equities, addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of the Applicant. He said that this is the last building for this park’s south campus. He said that 29 of the replacement trees will be put back on site as part of their landscape plan. This will reduce the amount they will pay into the tree fund, and if more trees can be squeezed onto the site, that is the intention of the Applicant.

Chair Nagy asked the audience if anyone would like to speak during the Public Hearing portion of this meeting.

Mr. Wayne Hogan, Novi: Said that the bathroom design of this building does not provide enough room for wheelchair access. The women’s stall is in the wrong location; it should be in the far end of the bathroom with the wall extending across the room to provide for ample space. The current design would not allow the door to close all the way. There is not enough room for a handicapped person to transfer from their wheelchair. The first privacy wall is too narrow in both the men’s and women’s rooms. Mr. Hogan also noted that this plan provides eight-foot wide handicapped parking spaces next to nine-foot wide standard parking spaces. He thought the Applicant was going to make a concerted effort to address this. He also thought there would be a van-accessible space on the east side of the building.

Chair Nagy explained to Mr. Hogan that these plans were for HCOC V, and the previous review at the last meeting was for HCOC IV. The buildings look similar but are two different plans. Chair Nagy closed the Public Hearing.

Member Paul said that the Applicant’s response letter addresses most issues. She was unsure about the lighting. She asked Mr. Sosin if they would be lowering the lighting from thirty feet to 18 feet. He responded that the submittal of their lighting plan was preliminary and that they would review their plans and consider reducing the height of their lighting.

Member Paul asked Lance Shipman, Landscape Architect, whether he was satisfied with the Landscape Plan. He said that the Applicant has since resubmitted new landscape plans and the Planning Department is confident that the Applicant will be able to comply with the new Ordinance prior to the final site plan submittal. Mr. Sosin agreed that they would be able to meet the terms of the Ordinance. She appreciated the Applicant addressing the wetland comments.

Member Avdoulos thought these five buildings have turned into a nice campus. He commented for Mr. Hogan’s benefit that the State of Michigan’s codes follow the 2000 International Building Code as well as the ADA, and the minimum parking space width is eight feet with the required five-foot clearance next to it. Although it would be appreciated if the Applicant would consider enlarging these spaces if possible, Member Avdoulos noted that they are within regulation.

Member Avdoulos said that the Building Department will have to review the bathroom designs to ensure that clearances in those rooms can be achieved.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Paul:

Member Kocan asked whether there would be negative impacts resulting from the redirection of the drainage flow on the site. Civil Engineer Ben Croy responded that the Applicant has taken a portion of the south drainage from the previously approved "master plan" and redirected it to the north. The ramification from that change is that they will have to enlarge the detention basin to accommodate the redirected additional flow; they have the room to make that change.

Member Kocan asked whether the parking space overage is reduced from sixty spaces to 25 based on the Applicant’s compliance with the new Landscape Ordinance. Mr. Schmitt and Mr. Shipman said that Member Kocan’s comments appear to be correct. Member Kocan asked whether the Applicant would be able to satisfy his parking needs with this new count; Mr. Schmitt responded that because the Applicant owns the surrounding parcels he can always realign the property lines to add more acreage and therefore more parking if the need ever arises.

Member Kocan asked about the comment in the Traffic Review stating that the approval of the easement can only be granted after the submission of the Preliminary Site Plan for the neighboring parcel. Mr. Schmitt said that the Planning Department respectfully disagrees with Birchler Arroyo’s opinion, and that the easement could be approved for virtually any location along that common property line, regardless of who owns the neighboring parcel. Because the parcels have the same owner, the scenario is even more manageable, and curb cuts onto Twelve Mile can be designed to avoid Same Side Driveway Spacing Waiver issues.

Member Kocan appreciated Mr. Hogan’s comments and requested the Applicant to kindly consider them as well. Mr. Sosin responded that these plans were submitted prior to this discussion being held regarding HCOC IV. He did not want Mr. Hogan or the Planning Commission to think that his comments were being ignored. He said that the revised plan now includes a van-accessible parking space near the entrance that was lacking one.

Chair Nagy asked why the plan did not conform to the new Landscape Ordinance. Mr. Shipman responded that the plans were submitted prior to the new Ordinance being adopted. He reiterated that the Applicant has demonstrated that there is enough room on the plan to accommodate the new Landscape Ordinance. Chair Nagy noted that the plan has been reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshal.

Member Paul asked whether Member Avdoulos would like to add language to the motion to address the lowering of the lighting to 18 feet. Member Avdoulos said this site plan’s lighting should mimic the lighting found at the other four locations on this campus. Mr. Sosin replied that the rest of the campus lighting is at thirty feet. Member Avdoulos said it concerned him to lower the lighting on just one building out of five.

Chair Nagy called for the vote.

Consideration of the request of Gerald Loiselle for reconsideration of two items shown on the previously approved Final Site Plan. The subject property is located in Section 15 on the southwest corner of Fonda Street and Novi Road in the TC (Town Center) District. The developer proposes the removal of two items from the approved Final Site Plan: a monument sign and a concrete traffic control island in the center of the Fonda Street entrance. The subject site is 0.43 acres.

Ms. McBeth located the property on an aerial map. There is a 2,600 square-foot unoccupied retail building on the site. To the north is the Big Boy restaurant; to the south is Wendy’s; to the west on Fonda Street are two single-family homes; further to the west is the existing Novi Expo Center. Across Novi Road are the Boston Market Restaurant and the Fifth Third Bank. The site and its surroundings are zoned TC (Town Center) and master planned for Town Center commercial uses.

The building and site improvements have been constructed with two exceptions: the six-foot tall "City of Novi" monument sign and the Fonda Street traffic control island. The Applicant requests reconsideration of those two details on the approved Final Site Plan. Since these items were shown on the approved site plans, it is the Planning Department’s opinion that the Planning Commission, as the original reviewing body, is responsible for approval of the requested changes.

The Planning Review indicates that all properties in the Town Center District should provide amenities in the form of exterior lighting, paved activity nodes, street and sidewalk furniture, safety paths, screening walls and planters (per the Town Center Design Manual). Other amenities that may be required are entrance ways and focal points. The proposed signage does not appear as a specific requirement of the study, but apparently it was requested by the Landscape Architect at the time of approval. The Landscape Review indicated the removal of the sign can not be recommended without the Planning Commission’s approval. The Traffic Review and the Engineering Review both noted that the traffic control island is not really necessary. The Fire Department Review also recommended approval. Ms. McBeth asked the Planning Commission to consider the Applicant’s request.

Joe Obezinski of Joseph Philips Architect, LLC represented the Applicant. He said that the removal of the traffic island would be more conducive to the flow of traffic since the drive was narrow from the start. The sign was indicated in the original plans and when the Applicant was asked to give further construction information on the sign, he looked around the City to find another sign to use as a guideline. He found none. He then looked at the amenities that he had already provided (benches, landscaped entry) and wondered if the sign would add or detract from the area. Therefore the request is before the Planning Commission to consider the removal of this sign stipulation.

Member Markham said the project is an immense improvement to the site. She thought the traffic island was unnecessary and could indeed be an impediment to traffic. She said that there may not be a formal policy in place to support the request for the City of Novi identification sign. Member Markham noted that the Applicant has tried and for whatever reason he was unable to get an answer on the construction standards for the project.

Moved by Member Markham, supported by Member Paul:

Member Paul said the project was attractive and thanked the Applicant for the amenities that have been put on the site.

Member Kocan said that the Town Center Design and Development Study of 1986 was incorporated into the Ordinance, and is referenced in Section 1602.14: "…do things in accordance with the Town Center Design and Development Study/Technical Reference which is made a part of this Ordinance." She said the Study pinpoints four areas that were proposed as Special Use areas: Novi Road, Fonda Street, and the most northerly proposed road in the northeast quadrant (Crescent Drive). She assumed that the subject property was the location noted in the Study; however, she looked at the map in the Study and the location is asterisked with a notation that the Fonda Street requirement should be an art node rather than an entry sign. She said that because of this discrepancy she is uncomfortable in trying to enforce the placement of the entry sign.

Member Kocan commented that if the Beautification Plan goes forward with the notion of incorporating the Novi Road Corridor Plan and the Grand River Corridor Plan, the City will need to ensure that discrepancies like this Town Center Study inconsistency are identified and removed from the language. She supported the motion.

Member Avdoulos thought that the identification sign (or art node) at this Fonda Street location may have been suggested at the time that the Novi Expo Center was becoming a popular destination. With the anticipated relocation of the Expo Center, Member Avdoulos thought that the City identification sign closer to the expressway (further north) was probably more appropriate. Member Avdoulos agreed great care should be taken when incorporating the corridor plans into the Ordinance so that the Special Use Districts can be enforced. He also commented that Novi Road is not pedestrian friendly and functions more like a highway. While the Town Center Ordinance meant to create a pedestrian-friendly environment, it has not been executed in that manner. He supported the motion.

Chair Nagy noted that the Information Center suggested by the Town Center Study is the Fidelity Building, and nothing is required there. It would be ludicrous to require this identifying sign at Fonda Street when nothing is required at the major Town Center identifying property. She thought that enough elements of the Study are outdated to warrant the plan being updated. She supported the motion.

Proposed Zoning Ordinance language for Section 3402, Planned Rezoning Overlay, an Ordinance to allow property owners to propose and to allow the City to approve a site specific development, including conditions in conjunction with a proposed rezoning.

Ms. McBeth told the Planning Commission that they need to schedule a Public Hearing for the Text Amendment 18.183, Planned Rezoning Overlay. This text amendment was drafted by the City Attorney following City Council’s policy sessions held earlier this year. City Council reviewed the proposed language and referred the matter to the Planning Commission for review, recommendation and a Public Hearing.

Chair Nagy asked Ms. McBeth whether the second meeting in November would suffice. She said that it would. Chair Nagy confirmed with the other Commission members that this date was acceptable.

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Paul:

Member Kocan said that it would behoove the Planning Commission if the Planning Department could prepare information on the following stipulations of the text amendment for the Public Hearing:

1. At the bottom of page two, Section 3402.B.7, there is a statement that the City can perform maintenance if the owner fails to timely perform. What is the definitive time frame?

2. In the middle of page three, Section 3402.B.PRO Agreement.3, states that the "… PRO Agreement shall be binding upon the inure to the benefit of the property owner and City…" Member Kocan suggested that more colloquial terminology be used so as to remove any misunderstanding of the language.

3. Member Kocan asked whether a rezoning is considered an amendment to this Ordinance, which is the language that is found throughout the document. She had never heard of this situation being described in such a manner. When she thinks of an Ordinance she thinks of verbiage and not the zoning map. Ms. McBeth responded that if an Applicant comes forth with a rezoning request, they can do so and they can also ask for review under this Planned Rezoning Overlay as well. It is at the Applicant’s option whether he would like to be reviewed in this manner. The Applicant would then voluntarily provide an Agreement that lists the stipulations.

4. Member Kocan clarified the process that an Applicant would follow in using this Planned Rezoning Overlay. The Applicant would come to the Planning Commission with a rezoning or a possible PRO. An Agreement is not written until the City Council approves of the concept. She said that there is no discussion of "concept" in this text amendment language. It states that if the City Council determines that it may approve the rezoning, then the Applicant will enter into a PRO and the City Council will then make a final determination. She thought if it was going to be called a PRO concept then it needs to be stated. She then asked what happens after the Applicant has gone before City Council. Does Council table the request or extend the meeting? She thought this issue needed more clarification and should be addressed on page five under 3402.D.1.a.iii where the approval of the Agreement is discussed. She said that the language should read, "…after approval of the PRO concept" or something to that effect. She said that a similar instance can be found on page eight in Sections 3402.E.5-6; she suggested that it specifically state that there are actually two levels of approval.

5. Member Kocan asked what the Applicant must demonstrate based on the language of Section 3402.D.2 (page six). She asked if that sentence could be reduced to, "The City Council shall judge and review an application based upon the following requirements and standards:" If there is a burden of demonstrating some kind of benefit, then Member Kocan suggested that the word "benefit" be included in the language.

6. Also on page six, Section 3402.D.3, Member Kocan asked how the City measures "due course" as found in the sentence, "…commences within such two year period and proceeds in due course to completion."

7. On page seven, Section 3402.E.1, there is reference to the Applicant requesting review under the PRO at a later time during the process. She suggested it be clarified that a two-step process would require two Public Hearings.

Member Kocan was pleased with this Planned Rezoning Overlay, a concept that she has learned about in the Citizen Planner training class that she is attending. She indicated that Novi was the only community represented at this training class that did not have PUD language like this already in place. She said that the use of Development Agreements regarding site plans or rezonings borders on being an illegal process in the State of Michigan.

Chair Nagy said that Member Kocan’s points were well taken. She agreed that a time frame should accompany the "due course" language. The term "concept" should be better defined.

Member Paul complimented Member Kocan’s comments and appreciated her ongoing efforts in reviewing Ordinance language.

The Planning Commission turned in their correction for incorporation into the minutes.

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Markham:

There were no Consent Agenda removals for Planning Commission action.

There were no Matters for Discussion.

There were no Special Reports.

Wayne Hogan, Novi: Stated that the new parking layout at the Novi Library will provide for eight handicapped parking spaces with two-sided access. He cited this location, Providence and the Outback Steakhouse as places that care about their patrons and encouraged other Applicants to design their handicapped parking in similar fashion.

Mr. Hogan stated that he will be demonstrating for the City next week how they can re-arrange their bathroom facilities at City Hall to provide an elongated stall that allows a patron in a wheelchair to close the door and maintain their dignity.

Mr. Hogan spoke briefly with the representative of the Loiselle Building and asked them to consider an alternative, universal space design for their handicapped parking. It would reduce the jockeying that a driver would have to do in their parking lot and the space would not have to abut a curb. He said that Mr. Obezinski would recommend to the owner that he consider removing the curb.

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Markham:

Motion carried 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:27 p.m.

WED 10/08/03 MASTER PLAN COMMITTEE 7:00 PM

THU 10/09/03 IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE 6:00 PM

WED 10/15/03 PLANNING COMMISSION 7:30 PM

MON 10/20/03 CITY COUNCIL 7:30 PM

WED 11/05/03 PLANNING COMMISSION 7:30 PM

THR 11/06/03 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

MON 11/10/03 CITY COUNCIL 7:30 PM

TUE 11/11/03 CITY OFFICES CLOSED, VETERANS DAY

WED 11/19/03 RULES COMMITTEE MEETING 6:15 PM

Transcribed by Jane Schimpf, October 20, 2003 Signature on File

Date Approved: November 5, 2003 Donna Jernigan, Planning Assistant