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

Present: Members Avdoulos, Cassis, Gaul (arrived at 8:10 p.m.), Kocan, Markham, Pehrson, Shroyer, Sprague

Absent: Member Ruyle

Also Present: David Evancoe, Director of Planning; Tim Schmitt, Planner; Barb McBeth, Planner; Lance Shipman, Landscape Architect; Ben Croy, Civil Engineer; Tom Schultz, City Attorney

The attendees of the meeting recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

Member Kocan added "Administrative Review Criteria" under Matters for Discussion. Chair Markham added "Scheduling a Second Legal Training Seminar" to Matters for Discussion.

Moved by Member Shroyer, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Ward Dietrich, 49829 Leyland Circle: Stated that he and many of his neighbors are in dispute with Toll Brothers over Island Lakes Phase 2B, SP03-45. He reminded the Planning Commission that at the last meeting Toll Brothers indicated that they would be moving these condos to an area more similar in design. He said that City Council and the Mayor were all looking forward to this resolution and RUD Amendment. Now Toll Brothers has made a radical decision to continue with SP03-45 in its original form. Mr. Dietrich said that they are now seeking legal representation to begin the litigation process against Toll Brothers. It was Mr. Dietrich’s understanding that Toll Brothers is going to remove the trees immediately before their progress is halted by a court order; therefore, he asked the City to put a halt to the approval process until this matter has unfolded.

Member Avdoulos said there was no correspondence to share.

There were no Communications or Committee Reports.

There were no Presentations.

Consideration of the request of Fifth Third Bank for a driveway spacing waiver. The subject property is located in Section 14 on the east side of Novi Road, north of Grand River Avenue, in the TC (Town Center) Zoning District. The Applicant is requesting a driveway spacing waiver (173 ft. proposed vs. 200 ft. required) for a new curb cut onto Crowe Drive relative to Novi Road.

Member Kocan originally made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda, but retracted her motion. At Member Shroyer’s request, the Planning Commission would discuss the matter under the Consent Agenda Removals for Commission Action.

The Public Hearing was opened for possible recommendation to City Council to amend subsection 2503.1 of the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance to revise the standards for accessory buildings within the City.

Planner Barbara McBeth said that in February 2004 City Council requested that a review of accessory building size and the corresponding Public Hearing be held. The Planning Department has reviewed the Ordinance and compared it to other communities’ Ordinances. The 2002 Ordinance Review Committee proposal was also reviewed. Additionally, the local residential homebuilders who have been taking associated cases before the ZBA were asked to comment on this subject. Dean Masciulli of Multi Building Company and Mark Guidobono of Cambridge Homes represented the area builders and provided input.

Ms. McBeth said that the Planning Commission forwarded this matter to the Implementation Committee. Building Official Don Saven attended a meeting to discuss the rationale for considering different sizes of accessory structures for different zoning districts. He discussed how the Building Department has applied the Ordinance over the years. He told the Implementation Committee what the Building Department recommends be changed in the current Ordinance. The Implementation Committee discussed what components are creating this need for larger garages – car size, walkways and porches (that accommodate elevation changes from the home to the attached garage).

Ms. McBeth noted that the Planning Department has also been in contact with Stuart Michaelson regarding this issue; he also represents the homebuilders.

Ms. McBeth said that the Ordinance will remain unchanged in these areas:

An attached accessory building must conform to all regulations of the main building.

Accessory buildings shall not be erected in the required front yard or exterior side yard.

The total floor area of the accessory buildings cannot exceed 25% of the required rear yard.

No detached accessory building shall be closer than ten feet to any main building and shall not be located closer than six feet to any interior side lot or rear lot line.

The standards regarding setback from alleys and through lots (lots with ROWs in front and back) remain the same.

No accessory structures may be constructed in an easement or ROW.

14 feet remains the maximum height of detached accessory buildings in residential and some commercial districts.

The aggregate total of accessory buildings shall not exceed the ground floor area of the principal home. This standard will be retained but relocated to 2503.1.E.4.

The ZBA will retain its authority to approve up to 2,500 square feet for lots exceeding one acre in R-A and R-1, subject to a number of conditions. This is also in 2503.1.E.4. (The Ordinance Review Committee previously eliminated this provision; ultimately the Implementation Committee determined that the standard should be maintained for larger lots.)

The Schedule of Regulations currently limits the maximum lot coverage to 25% of the lot.

Ms. McBeth summarized the proposed changes:

The current size standard for R-2, R-3, R-4 and R-T is 600 square feet. The current size standard for R-A and R-1 is 750 square feet. The current standard also allows up to 250 square feet for storage and/or dog houses. The proposed language combines the garage and storage square footage and lists the new standard as only Accessory Structure square footage.

R-3, R-4 and R-T accessory structure size is now proposed at 850 square feet.

R-2 accessory structure size is now proposed at 1,000 square feet.

R-1 and R-A accessory structure size is now proposed at 1,500 square feet, subject to the condition that the lot meets the area and width standards of the Ordinance. If the lot does not meet those standards, the total aggregate of accessory building size would be limited to 1,000 square feet.

The Ordinance Review Committee had previously recommended that garages with three or more overhead doors facing forward must be screened from the street (with walls or landscaping). The Implementation Committee felt that this provision would be difficult to attain and has therefore eliminated it.

The Ordinance Review Committee had also recommended architectural compatibility for accessory structures greater than 100 square feet. The Implementation Committee also recommends this change.

Chair Markham asked whether anyone wished to speak.

Mark Guidobono, Cambridge Homes, 1014 Elmsmere, Northville: Supported the Implementation Committee’s recommendations. He said that new homeowners are requesting three and four car garages and this proposed language addresses that change. He said it would be beneficial to and more efficient for the City to adopt these changes. It would be in tune with the market and there is no perceived downside to this change.

Chair Markham closed the Public Hearing.

Member Kocan reviewed the new language, and in an effort to combine the Ordinance Review Committee’s and the Implementation Committee’s recommendations, she offered the following changes to the Ordinance:

Member Kocan noted that the new language also limits a parcel to two accessory structures whereas the current language provides no limit. She hoped that City Council was not shocked by the recommendation of 1,500 square feet for an accessory building in R-1 and R-A. She said that the Implementation Committee felt that there were other stipulations in the Ordinance that would prevent potential problems with this size provision, and this language would reduce the number of cases coming before the ZBA.

Member Cassis said the time has come for this Ordinance update. He said that the language reflects changes in our lifestyle, and will add to the character and value of our homes. He said that Mr. Guidobono provided sketches of the $2,000,000 to $3,000,000 homes that he is building and 1,500 square foot garages are completely within reason for these homes. Member Cassis suggested that the sketches of typical newly-constructed Novi homes should be forwarded to City Council for their perusal.

Member Pehrson agreed with Member Kocan’s comments.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Cassis:

Member Shroyer asked whether the language, "because input was received from the Ordinance Review Committee, City Departments, the building community, and the Implementation Committee." could be added to the motion. Member Pehrson and Member Cassis agreed.

Member Avdoulos said that it was very helpful to have Mr. Saven available at their Implementation Committee meeting to discuss this issue. He noted that Mr. Saven also showed them schematics of the various zoning districts so that setbacks and acreage could be thoughtfully considered. Member Avdoulos said that the sketches of homes really clarify that the proposed sizes are within reason. He noted that Northville and Plymouth Ordinances don’t even provide limitation language. He said that the Implementation Committee considered percentages as well. He said that the R-A limitation on accessory building footprints exceeding the principal structure footprint was removed to reflect the need for large accessory structures for farmsteads.

Member Kocan noted that accessory building footprints are indeed limited to 2,500 square foot total. Ms. McBeth concurred, and said that Mr. Saven would recommend that if any other changes were to be considered, he asked that accessory structures in the R-A district not be limited in size to less than the ground floor area of the main structure, in case it was a farmstead (requiring more garage-type space) and there was a smaller house on the lot. Ms. McBeth reminded the Planning Commission that an additional 2,500 square foot would also be allowed with the ZBA’s approval.

Member Kocan asked if 2503.1.E.4 addressed Mr. Saven’s concern. Ms. McBeth replied that Mr. Saven would ask that this stipulation be removed from R-A homes (so the R-A homeowner wouldn’t have to go before the ZBA). Ms. McBeth suggested that 2503.1.E.4 begin with, "With the exception of the R-A district…"

Chair Markham clarified that this text change would allow the R-A homeowner’s accessory structure size to exceed the footprint on the main structure without having to go before the ZBA for approval.

Mr. Schultz said that the ZBA could also provide relief beyond 2,500 square feet if practical difficulty could be demonstrated. Mr. Saven’s proposed change is intended to address something that is less than a practical difficulty. He noted that if there was farming activity associated with a parcel the Right to Farm Act would probably have implications that would allow the City to massage these standards, which Mr. Schultz felt addressed Mr. Saven’s concerns.

Mr. Schultz also responded to Member Kocan’s comment about the "E" on page three. He said that the preceding section referenced the size of accessory structures. He suggested that the comment about side entry garages would be better placed in 2501.3.K, which is the architectural "catch-all" provision. Member Kocan clarified with Mr. Schultz that the language that would be placed in "K" would be, "Wherever possible, side entry garages shall be encouraged in residential districts."

Member Pehrson, the maker of the motion, agreed with that change. Member Cassis also agreed.

Chair Markham appreciated the Implementation Committee’s work.

Member Pehrson also noted for the record that the Implementation Committee meetings are open to the public.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Paul J. Oliver for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan, Woodlands Permit and Storm Water Management Plan. The subject property is located in Section 14, west of Meadowbrook Road between Eleven and Twelve Mile roads in the OST (Office Service Technology) District. The subject property is approximately 2.998 acres. The Applicant is proposing a 29,452 square foot office building.

Planner Barbara McBeth located the property on an aerial map. The property is currently vacant and is zoned OST and master planned for office. A single family home is to the north and further north is the Trane Corporation. A single family home is to the south, and a site plan for Beech Forest Office Park has been approved for that site. Further south is Meadowbrook Corporate Park. Vacant land is to the east. All properties in the area are zoned and master planned for office.

Ms. McBeth said there are regulated woodlands off the site to the west, and potentially on the site itself. The wetlands map indicated a wetland in the very northwest corner. The proposed plan is for a two-story building that will house the Oliver Hatcher Company. There will be one driveway onto Meadowbrook Road, at the north section of the site. A secondary access will be located at the southwest corner of the property. This site has previously been referred to as one of the "Pigtail Parcels" that connects the Singh property to Meadowbrook Road. Singh owns the property to the west and northwest. This southerly parcel connects to Meadowbrook Road. Singh has decided to sell their parcel. In March 2004 City Council denied Singh’s Development Agreement for residential purposes; therefore, the OST zoning remains.

The Planning Review indicated that a Planning Commission waiver for screening of the truck service area is required. The loading area on OST properties must be screened with a berm and/or decorative screen wall. There will not be any overhead loading doors, and it will be partially screened by the required landscape buffers. The Planning Commission can waive this screening requirement in situations where the loading area abuts other OST property, or under several other conditions.

The Wetland Review indicated that a minor use permit is required for the discharging of treated stormwater into a state-regulated wetland. No wetlands are proposed to be filled. The review indicated that the impact of this design would be negligible. Administrative approval of the permit is needed and will be granted following site plan approval.

The Woodlands Review indicated that there are woodlands at the southwest corner of the site, in an area that measures 70 feet wide and is 210 feet east of the west property line. This is about one-third of an acre of upland woodland area. In general terms, the review indicated that the area is in decline, and with the natural demise of the woodland, the removal to accommodate this project would only hasten the demise or loss of the trees by a few years. The Consultant therefore recommended approval of the permit.

The Landscape Review indicated no major issues. There are minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

The Traffic Review determined that a Planning Commission waiver of the same side driveway spacing was necessary relative to the drive’s proximity to Beech Forest (158 feet provided, 185 feet required). This was also noted in the Engineering Review, with the comment that the drive is in the best location given the constraints of the site. This issue was reviewed at the time of the Concept Plan meeting and Pre-Application meeting. It was determined that this was the best design, given the fact that the wetland would be more affected with any other design.

Ms. McBeth showed the façade board and said the plan met the façade requirements of the City. The building will be brick with cast stone with a metal roof.

The Fire Department Review noted minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

Ms. McBeth said that the Applicant wrote a letter stating his willingness to comply with all of the statements made in the review letters.

Paul Hatcher, 49668 Martin Drive, Wixom, represented the Applicant. He offered to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have.

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

Member Pehrson said the architectural design of the building was striking. He did not have an issue with the loading area waiver request. He thought the driveway spacing waiver was acceptable since collectively the disciplines found this to be the most acceptable site plan.

Member Pehrson asked whether any other building will share the wetland in the area. Civil Engineer Ben Croy said he anticipated that the northerly property could share that wetland. Member Pehrson then asked how the "last Applicant in" is affected by approving plans on a "first come, first served" basis. Mr. Croy responded that the burden does increase as each Applicant comes forward with his plan. It is possible that the last Applicant to develop may have to re-route his discharge significantly. In this particular case, though, Mr. Croy did not see where the last Applicant to develop would have a problem with his design.

Member Pehrson noted that the Woodland was mostly ash trees. He asked whether their removal is factored into the hydrological equation. Mr. Croy said that the runoff coefficient would carry through the change in the properties. There is a factor associated with grass, with pavement, etc. Typically there is no differentiation made between an open area and a wooded area.

Member Pehrson asked whether the cross-access easement issue found in the Traffic Review should be included in the motion. City Attorney Tom Schultz responded that as a practical matter, the catch-all phrase used by the Planning Commission in their motions ("subject to the conditions and comments in the review letters") would address that issue. However, the Planning Commission may at their discretion state this specifically in their motion.

Member Pehrson noted that he found it easier to review this site plan with the Applicant’s response letter in hand.

Member Sprague thought the design was nice. He asked if the loading area was also the delivery area. Ms. McBeth said that it would be the area where typical office-type deliveries would be made (UPS, etc.). Member Sprague was concerned with its proximity to the handicapped parking spaces. He asked if the trucks would park perpendicular to or parallel to the building. Ms. McBeth said that Member Sprague’s comment was well-founded and that the Planning Department could review this matter further.

Member Sprague asked what would be facing the loading area from the parcel to the south. Ms. McBeth responded that the proposed building for that site is near the front of the site. It would be that site’s parking lot that would see this building’s loading area. Landscape Architect Lance Shipman said that the proposed plan does provide some plants and canopy trees, but not really any screening material. He would have to look at the other plans to determine what that Applicant has proposed for their property. Member Sprague supported the project but would like to see this issue further addressed.

Member Kocan read in the paperwork that the secondary access has been placed in a pre-determined location as part of a property settlement. This access connects this property to the Singh property. Mr. Hatcher did not have knowledge of the agreement between Singh and the City. When Mr. Hatcher purchased this property from Singh they were told that this access would have to be provided. This is not an exit; it is a secondary or tertiary emergency access to the south portion of the Singh property. Member Kocan said it was more of a benefit to the Singh property.

Member Kocan wondered that whether they could require access from this property to the northerly property (not the southerly property because a plan for it has already been approved). Mr. Schultz responded that he did not consider another location for this plan’s secondary access since the Fire Marshal had accepted the proposed location. Mr. Schultz said that he looked forward to the Implementation Committee reviewing the concept of cross-access easements because it is an important subject. He said that perhaps the Planning Department could explore the concept of a northerly access with the Applicant. Member Kocan asked whether she could ask the Applicant if he would be willing to put in an access to the northerly property. Mr. Hatcher responded that he did not understand what the purpose of that would be. Chair Markham explained that a second access would allow for emergency access,

Mr. Hatcher said that there is no site plan proposal for the northerly property, just as there isn’t any proposal now to the west. Secondly, Mr. Hatcher said that this site is maxed out in parking. He did not understand how an access to either the north or south would accommodate a tanker truck. They have done extensive designing on the access to Singh’s property (the turning radius for emergency vehicles is very large). Ms. McBeth concurred, and stated that the Applicant has already made sacrifices to create this design. Ms. McBeth noted that Beech Forest has two access points. The northerly property will likely connect to the more northerly Trane Corporation’s existing stub.

Chair Markham interjected that the access to Singh is for the benefit of Singh’s property. The secondary access is supposed to be for the benefit of the subject property. Mr. Schultz said that the Planning Commission comments have been noted, and at the time of Final Site Plan submittal when the comments have also come back from the Traffic Engineer, if a different design makes more sense then it will be explored at that time.

Member Kocan asked whether a Same Side Driveway Spacing Waiver is anticipated between this property and the northerly property. Mr. Croy said that is a possibility, although that property is wider than this parcel. He noted that the Trane Corporation drive is very north.

Member Kocan said that she would support the loading area waiver if additional landscaping was added. Since there are no overhead doors she did not see this design as a problem.

Member Pehrson said a secondary access solution could include a breakaway curb that would serve this property and the northerly property. Ms. McBeth said this could be explored with the Fire Marshal.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Kocan:

Member Kocan clarified with Member Pehrson that the cross-access to which he referred was to the property to the north. She seconded the motion.

Member Avdoulos confirmed with Member Pehrson that the reconfiguration of the handicapped access also included the loading area.

Member Cassis confirmed that the depth of this property is approximately 650 feet. He recommended that all of these ribbon-type parcels provide cross access to eliminate unnecessary traffic on the main roads. Member Cassis asked Mr. Evancoe whether the Planning Department could be advising Applicants to design their sites with these access points. Director of Planning David Evancoe responded that the Planning Department sees value in connecting parcels in such a manner. He said the Planning Department took into consideration the eventual development of the Singh property to west. He reminded the Planning Commission that this piece of land is a very long north-south parcel. The City felt that it was important to have a southerly access from that parcel to Meadowbrook Road. Absent this proposed access, the only other location for an access to the Singh parcel would be to very far north, either through the other "Pigtail Parcel" or to the future connector road (proposed). These two options are limiting for the Singh parcel.

Mr. Hatcher said that he would agree to look at the issue of secondary access but he hasn’t actually agreed to provide more access points. He said that providing three or four access points on a parcel of this size really starts to impinge on the use of the property. Chair Markham said that the motion just states that the Applicant will look at it with the Planning Department. Ms. McBeth concurred that the motion was stated as such.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Cassis:

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Sprague:

Chair Markham called for a short break.

Consideration of the request of Toll Brothers Inc. for approval of a Final Site Plan. The subject property is located in Section 18, west of Wixom Road on the north and south sides of Island Lake Drive in the R-A (Residential Acreage) District under a RUD Agreement. The subject property is approximately 6.69 acres out of a total of 907 acres in the overall development. The Applicant is proposing twelve condominium units within three buildings.

Director of Planning David Evancoe recalled that this plan came before the Planning Commission on March 10, 2004 for Preliminary Site Plan review. The Planning Commission requested at that time that the Final Site Plan come back for Planning Commission approval. Mr. Evancoe said that the Planning Commission contained correspondence from some Island Lake neighbors (the Lunsfords and the Carlsons), and said this was a great example of neighborhood activism. He said that the City has enjoyed getting to know the neighbors, as well as Toll Brothers. Planner Tim Schmitt concurred.

Mr. Schmitt located the property on an aerial photo. He noted the location of Catholic Central and the various phases of Island Lake. He said this project will have one development on the north side of Island Lake Drive and two on the south side, for a total of twelve units. On March 10, 2004 the following motion was made:

Mr. Schmitt said there will be a Conservation Easement and it will cover the mitigated wetland area, which is proposed to be complete within a five-year time period. All review letters indicated the plan may be approved, with minor items to be addressed at the time of Stamping Set Plan submittal. These plans are substantially similar to the plans reviewed by the Planning Commission in January and in March of 2004. The remaining comments pertain to woodlands, as there are some notes, and a performance guarantee is required. There are no regulated woodlands being removed. The trees being removed are not regulated under the Ordinance. The Applicant is adding 86 trees to fulfill replacement requirements from other phases. The Wetland Permit is a letter of authorization, not an actual permit, because there are only temporary buffer impacts. There are minor engineering items too.

Mr. Schmitt also provided the Planning Commission with a summary of the Island Lake RUD history. He noted that these units have consistently been shown as part of the overall Island Lake RUD plan.

Chair Markham thanked Mr. Schmitt for putting together the RUD history for the Planning Commission to review. She said the Planning Commission does not typically grant Final Site Plan approval but the Commission asked for this plan to return to ensure that the Island Lake neighbors had an opportunity to look at the plans. Their attorney also asked that the plan return to the Planning Commission. The Applicant said this would not be a problem. Fundamentally, she said, the Planning Commission must review this Final Site Plan in context to its meeting the intent of the Ordinance, just as they approved the Preliminary Site Plan. Chair Markham responded to Mr. Dietrich’s request that the Planning Commission delay this Final Site Plan approval by confirming with City Attorney Tom Schultz that there was no basis on which the Planning Commission could delay an approval. He reminded the Planning Commission that this is an RUD, which is a contract between the City and the property owner that must also be followed.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gaul:

Member Cassis asked Mr. Evancoe what happened to the amicable solution to which the Applicant and the neighbors alluded at the last Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Evancoe was not aware what had transpired between the two parties. He said the City was not a part of any negotiation process between them.

Jason Rickard, 10841 Winner’s Circle, Whitmore Lake, represented the Applicant. He told the Planning Commission that the solution discussed in March was not as easily reachable as described at that time. Upon further review by Toll Brothers and based on communication with the various parties involved (Planning Commission, City Council, the neighbors, the Planning Department, the Engineering Department) it was determined that it was in the best interest of the City of Novi to proceed with the subject plan. The RUD Agreement was a major factor in this decision. He said that the neighbors aren’t as happy, but everything had to be considered.

Mr. Rickard said that in order to make the neighbors happy, Toll Brothers brought a suggestion forward to the Planning Commission, City Council and the Planning Department and it was denied. Basically, Toll Brothers was proposing a similar plan but it seemed to them that the decision by those entities had already been made. Mr. Rickard said they put their best foot forward, and in the end, their suggestion was denied. Therefore, Toll Brothers felt that trying to come back with an RUD Amendment would hurt their relationship with the City.

Member Kocan supported the motion. She reviewed the RUD, its first amendment, and the request for the second Amendment where she suspected the relocation of these condos to the southeast corner of Ten Mile and Wixom Road was proposed. She said that request was turned down by the Planning Commission for a number of reasons – the number of units requested was more, the setbacks proposed were less than required and the conditions of the RUD were not met.

Member Shroyer said he was disappointed that there has been a miscommunication between the Applicant and the residents of Island Lake. Based on the RUD, the minutes indicating that no change to the location of those condos was ever made, the approval of the Preliminary Site Plan of the subject plan, and the review letters recommending approval of this Final Site Plan, Member Shroyer supported the motion.

Chair Markham concurred. She called for the vote.

Consideration of the request of Tony J. Gallo of Car Wash Builders, Inc. for an interpretation by the Planning Commission as to whether or not a car wash would be a permitted use under Section 1801.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.

Planner Tim Schmitt explained that under Section 1801.4 of the Zoning Ordinance the Planning Commission is charged with making the determination whether a non-described use is acceptable in the FS District, i.e., if the use serves the needs of freeway traffic. Mr. Gallo prefers that the Planning Commission interpret this section of the Ordinance prior to his submitting a plan for the property. There are six parcels in this district, all located on the east side of Haggerty Road, and one parcel is a detention basin.

Tony Gallo, 30555 Hoover Road, addressed the Planning Commission. He said that the subject parcel is pie shaped and very small. There would only be two employees for this car wash. Stacking requirements would meet the Ordinance. The setbacks should meet the Ordinance. He said that they would be offering a service to the commuter residents. He said the building is either 30’ x 90’ or 30’ x 100’ and he is building a dozen of these projects throughout southeast Michigan. Director of Planning David Evancoe clarified with Mr. Gallo that the subject property is immediately west of the Ramada Hotel and north of the detention pond which is north of Taco Bell. It is the northernmost FS parcel.

Member Shroyer said that this use as described cannot be considered an accessory building. He felt that the Planning Commission could interpret this use as a use similar to those allowed under Section 1801. He was in favor in stating this is a permitted use. He said this was not an approval of a site plan.

Member Cassis asked City Attorney Tom Schultz whether this is more likely an acceptable use when it is an accessory use to a gas station. Mr. Schultz said that non-attended carwashes have become appendages to gas stations in Michigan, and would be permissible. The question is whether it can be the principal use. Member Cassis did not think that it could be considered a principal use. He said the preamble to Section 1800 states that, "The FS District is intended to serve the needs of automobile traffic at the interchange areas of feeder roads and freeway facilities, to avoid undue congestion on feeder roads, to promote safe traffic flow at an interchange area and to protect adjacent properties in other zones from adverse influences of traffic." He noted that this is the most congested artery in the City. He thought that it would be a less intense use if it were an accessory use to a gas station. He did not support this as an acceptable use because it does not promote safe traffic and the use is too intense.

Member Avdoulos agreed that this is not an accessory structure, but he would consider this an acceptable use. He expressed concern for that area’s congestion. He said that at the time of site plan review the impact of a plan’s traffic could be considered; at this time the request is to determine the acceptability of the use.

Member Sprague did not think it should be considered an acceptable use. He noted that the traffic backups from other carwashes are the result of not enough stacking room being provided. He said that Section 1801 has five provisions, none of which apply to a car wash. He said that even if a car wash is considered a similar use, then it would also have to be considered a use that services freeway traffic, and he doesn’t think that is the case. He noted the Applicant himself said that his business would cater to the commuter.

Member Pehrson thought that this is one of those Ordinances with cracks in it. He suggested that a gift shop off the freeway wouldn’t serve much purpose but is considered an acceptable use. He said the Ordinance has the caveat that the use must service the freeway traffic and it has the caveat that says "not limited to." Therefore, he felt that it could be interpreted that a car wash was an acceptable use. He did question whether the parcel was big enough to support the structure.

Member Kocan confirmed with Mr. Schmitt that car washes, when completely enclosed in a building, are a permitted use in B-3. The Town Center car wash is likely a non-conforming use. The Novi Road (near Eight Mile) car wash is in a B-3 district. He requested that if the Planning Commission allows this use, the same language be used, i.e., that it must be a completely enclosed building.

Member Kocan said that a freeway service district would be at an intersection and not be buried on a parcel down the road. She did not think a car wash was a use that serviced freeway traffic, but she noted that it would be a permitted use if it were attached to a gas station. Ultimately she believes that she must land on the side of this being an acceptable use; she did question whether this sized parcel can accommodate a carwash. She said that the stacking ability of any carwash site plan will be greatly considered at the time of submittal.

Member Gaul thought the use was acceptable. He thought the language of the Ordinance was sufficiently ambiguous to give the Planning Commission the ability to make this decision.

Member Avdoulos interjected that because he lives on a dirt road, he looks for car washes near the freeway so that he can clean his car prior to reaching his destination.

Chair Markham said that she found a carwash to be an acceptable use. She said that the Planning Commission members should consider the "district" and not the "location" in their deliberation. However, she cautioned the Applicant about first reviewing whether this parcel can accommodate the use. She encouraged the Applicant, if they choose to move forward, to be prepared to defend their position that their plan provides enough stacking space for the cars.

Mr. Evancoe reminded the Planning Commission that it is conceivable that another FS property could redevelop, and this carwash use interpretation applies to all FS parcels.

Moved by Member Shroyer, seconded by Member Gaul:

Member Kocan asked if Member Shroyer would like to cite Section 1801.4, since the finding is the similarity of uses in 1801.1. She also suggested that the determination include that the carwash must be completely enclosed, similar to the language in the B-3 Ordinance. Member Shroyer and Member Gaul agreed.

Member Cassis said that the Planning Commission is dealing with semantics on this issue. He asked Mr. Schultz what his interpretation of the term "accessory" was. Mr. Schultz replied that the motion is not that the determination is an "accessory" use but that this is a permitted principal use because it is similar to the gas station use allowed in Section 1801.1. This is a policy determination made by the Planning Commission.

Member Sprague asked whether the Planning Commission needs to find that this use serves the needs of the freeway traffic. Mr. Schultz responded that the standard does require that the Planning Commission determine that the use serves the needs of freeway traffic. His understanding was that this was conveyed through the discussions leading up to the motion.

Proposed Sign Ordinance text amendment to allow for multiple tenant identification and master sign plan submittal in commercial districts.

Planner Tim Schmitt said this request came forward at a May 2003 ZBA meeting when the Novi Town Center brought forward a request to modify their main entrance signs. Under the current Ordinance there are specific provisions that prohibit a shopping center from placing tenant signs on the center’s identification sign. Former Council Member Michelle Bononi referred it to the Ordinance Review Committee. They researched the issues for several months, and with the help of John Martin of the City Attorney’s office, new Ordinance language was written. It was then brought to the City Council who referred to the Planning Commission for discussion and scheduling of the required Public Hearing.

Mr. Schmitt said that it has now been brought to the City’s attention that Northern Equities would like to place a tenant sign at their entrance to Haggerty Corporate Park. Mr. Schmitt also said the ZBA has recently heard two other similar requests. The City Council is asking the Planning Commission to review the language and consider whether office and light industrial tenants can also benefit from this Ordinance.

Mr. Schmitt said that the Planning Commission may choose to set the Public Hearing or send it to the Implementation Committee first. He suggested that because of the request for office/light industrial consideration it may be better to have the Implementation Committee review this late request prior to the Public Hearing.

City Attorney Tom Schultz followed that his colleague, Jerry Fisher, wrote in his letter that the variance provisions in the Sign Ordinance really need to be looked at. Currently it is just a reference to what the ZBA would look at in a land use site plan case, which is the topography of the land and things like that. It is not really what the ZBA practically looks at when they look at sign variances, which is visibility of the sign, etc. Mr. Schultz said that if the Implementation Committee is going to open up the Sign Ordinance, now would be a good time to look at the standards, generally, for any kind of sign, as well as the standards that the ZBA considers if and when they grant a variance.

Member Kocan reviewed the information and has already noted that a review of the appeals section is necessary. The new section must also be referred to throughout the existing sections. The Gateway East District must be added. The Committee must look at whether a distance (rather than "visibility" ) should be cited. The Ordinance allows for one ground sign, and it’s already a given that the Novi Town Center is going to need more, so that language should be looked at. Perhaps square footage should be considered.

Member Kocan informed the Planning Commission that the next Implementation Committee meeting is in June. That would be the first opportunity for review. Member Kocan said that all of the Planning Commission members should be forwarded a copy of the Sign Ordinance, since it is not a part of the Zoning Ordinance they may not already have it.

Moved by Member Sprague, seconded by Member Shroyer:

Member Avdoulos clarified that his "Signs" paperwork is indeed the Signs Ordinance. They discussed that new copies should be forwarded to the members.

Chair Markham said that she has never liked the City’s Sign Ordinance. She said that newcomers cannot find anything and that creates problems – in many cases is it unsafe if a customer is driving down the road and has to concentrate too hard on finding the sign. She also said that our Ordinance is not responsive to the needs of the business community. Obviously the City does not want big garish signs, but she finds it important that people are informed of the businesses that are here. She asked the Implementation Committee to take a good hard look at what can be done to the Ordinance to make sure that signage in the City is tasteful yet purposeful. She noted that the lettering cannot be so small that passersby cannot read the signs. She reiterated that she would like everyone to get an updated copy of the Sign Ordinance.

Member Kocan said she would like to keep the scope of this review within a workable size. She said that perhaps the Implementation Committee should first review what City Council has asked for, and review of the whole Ordinance can follow at a later date.

Consideration of the request of Fifth Third Bank for a driveway spacing waiver. The subject property is located in Section 14 on the east side of Novi Road, north of Grand River Avenue, in the TC (Town Center) Zoning District. The Applicant is requesting a driveway spacing waiver (173 ft. proposed vs. 200 ft. required) for a new curb cut onto Crowe Drive relative to Novi Road.

This item was removed from the Consent Agenda and placed under this heading for review. Member Shroyer asked whether the proposed employee spaces are above and beyond what currently exists. Director of Planning replied that the Applicant is proposing to remove three parking spaces to make way for the driveway onto Crowe Drive. They will provide 29 parking spaces in accordance with the Ordinance. Member Shroyer asked if two spaces were being relocated (page S-2). Mr. Evancoe said those were additional spaces.

Ms. McBeth said that the Applicant will be asked to show those parking spaces on the full-sized stamping set. Member Shroyer asked whether landscaping has to be removed. Ms. McBeth showed an aerial of the bank, and noted that the removed landscaping is just grass. Landscape Architect Lance Shipman said this plan will have an effect on the net green space, but no trees or shrubs are being removed. This green space will not be replaced and the Applicant will be planting landscaping that maintains the clear vision of the area.

Member Shroyer confirmed that City Engineer Ben Croy reviewed both the engineering and the traffic on this project. Member Shroyer asked whether the Planning Commission can approve the Crowe Drive entrance on the condition that the southerly Novi Road drive is removed. Mr. Croy responded that the southerly drive was an entrance; the northerly drive is an exit. This would be a difficult request. Member Shroyer said the Crowe Drive entry could be the entrance, and a directional sign could be placed at the road. Ms. McBeth said that the Applicant has spoken at great length with the City regarding this option. In the end the concept was found to be infeasible – those two driveways are essential to their operation, for the walk-up customers and the drive-through stations as well. Member Shroyer raised these questions as a result of the number of curb cuts along Novi Road in this area.

Mr. George Carr of Fifth Third Bank, 300 West North Street, Brighton, told Member Shroyer that he was uncertain that closing the southerly drive would accomplish what Member Shroyer wishes. He said that this drive is both ingress and egress. The purpose of the Crowe Drive entrance is to reduce the congestion in the parking lot, with the stacking of the drive through.

Mr. Evancoe told Member Shroyer that the Planning Commission waiver for driveway spacing would still be necessary because it has to do with the distance between the drive and Novi Road.

Member Cassis said that this third driveway will lessen the impact onto Novi Road. He supported the project.

Member Pehrson thought that the metal storage container on the back side of the building needs to be relocated so that the affected parking space can be used in their required parking calculation. Mr. Evancoe said that the Applicant has already done this. Member Pehrson also supported the plan, and he said that removing the southerly drive would create more need for signage.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Sprague:

In the matter of the request of Fifth Third Bank, SP02-47, motion to grant approval of an opposite side spacing waiver (173 feet provided, 200 feet required), subject to the comments in the review letters being addressed at the time of final site plan review because it improves traffic flow on Novi Road and public safety.

Ms. McBeth explained that the waiver is necessary because of the proximity of the drive to Novi Road. Technically it is an Opposite Side Driveway Spacing Waiver. She noted that the required lengths are determined in part by the speed limit of the affected roads.

Member Shroyer asked if the motion should include language addressing the relocation of the parking spaces. Mr. Evancoe replied that this would not be necessary because there is an administrative review being performed on this plan, and the Planning Department will ensure that the parking is adequate before the plan is approved.

Member Kocan said that there are already 29 spaces on the plan and adding two more spaces would equal 31. Ms. McBeth said the space count would be verified for accuracy before the final plan is stamped.

Chair Markham supported the Applicant’s request for this curb cut.

In the matter of the request of Fifth Third Bank, SP02-47, motion to grant approval of an opposite side spacing waiver (173 feet provided, 200 feet required), subject to the comments in the review letters being addressed at the time of final site plan review because it improves traffic flow on Novi Road and public safety.

Member Kocan said that comments have been made that plans requiring only parking and landscaping changes can have administrative review. She wanted the other Planning Commission members to weigh in on this comment. She felt that perhaps the curb cuts are something greater than just parking and landscaping, and that Fifth Third Bank should not be reviewed administratively but by the Planning Commission.

Member Shroyer said the Planning Department does a good job determining which plans should come to the Planning Commission for review. He said that the Rules Committee can look at this issue to determine whether the Planning Department should address the Administrative Liaison Committee when they have a plan that could potentially require Planning Commission review.

Member Cassis said that the Planning Commission should consider the time and money that an Applicant spends when their plan must go before the Planning Commission, and weigh that against the intensity of their request. He said that the Planning Department should be given enough leeway to determine which plans require Planning Commission review. He conceded that there are grey areas, but he said the Planning Department has never abused their position.

Member Avdoulos agreed. He also agreed that the Administrative Liaison Committee could be considered as a sounding board for questionable projects, such as projects that are on a major thoroughfare or would have a major impact.

Chair Markham said that she considers health, safety and welfare. She said that in the case of Fifth Third Bank, safety is an issue. She agreed that the Planning Commission already has a lot on their plates, but she thinks that a health and safety question, or adjacency to residential, may be better reviewed by the Planning Commission. She said that it could remain at the discretion of the Planning Department, but if there was a health, safety or welfare component to the plan, or adjacency issue, the Planning Department should err on the side of excess and allow the Planning Commission to review the plan.

Director of Planning David Evancoe said that no one individual in the Planning Department makes the decision on whether a plan should be reviewed administratively. If a Planner has a questionable site plan they bring it to his attention and together they determine whether the plan should go to the Planning Commission. Sometimes City Attorney Tom Schultz also weighs in.

Member Pehrson liked Chair Markham’s suggestion about coming to the Planning Commission when there are adjacency issues. The idea is to improve the process so that Applicants don’t have to wait. In cases where the process can be improved through administrative review he thinks that is the way the process should go. Member Pehrson said that communication should be improved as well. In cases where there is controversy or the public should be made more aware, then the Planning Commission should review the plan.

Member Kocan said she does not wish to micro-manage the Planning Department. She thanked Mr. Evancoe for explaining how the Planning Department decides which plans should go before the Planning Commission.

Member Avdoulos added that the Planning Department did justice to the FS District Applicant by telling him to go before the Planning Commission for the language interpretation first, before submitting a site plan.

Chair Markham said that she would like the issue of Consent Judgments discussed at the next training. How does the City end up with a Consent Judgment? How is the Planning Commission supposed to evaluate the plan? What is the Planning Commission’s responsibility?

City Attorney Tom Schultz said that the Agenda will also include Conservation Easements, lawsuits, cross-access easements, etc.

The last meeting was held on May 5, 2004. The Planning Commission determined that the next date would be June 16, 2004 at 6:30 p.m.

There were no Special Reports.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Sprague:

Motion carried 8-0. The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.

WED 05/05/04 CITY COUNCIL MEETING-BUDGET SESSION 7:00 PM

WED 05/05/04 PLANNING COMMISSION LEGAL TRAINING 6:30 PM

WED 05/12/04 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 05/17/04 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:30 PM

WED 05/26/04 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 05/31/04 MEMORIAL DAY, CITY OFFICES CLOSED

Transcribed by Jane Schimpf, May 19, 2004 Signature on File

Date Approved: June 9, 2004 Donna Jernigan, Planning Assistant June 29, 2004