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

Present: Members John Avdoulos, Victor Cassis, Lynn Kocan, David Lipski, Mark Pehrson, Lowell Sprague, Wayne Wrobel

Absent: Members Richard Gaul (Excused), Andrew Gutman (Excused)

Also Present: Barbara McBeth, Director of Planning; Tim Schmitt, Planner; Mark Spencer, Planner; Lance Shipman, Landscape Architect; Rob Hayes, City Engineer; Brian Coburn, Civil Engineer; Ben Croy, Civil Engineer; David Gillam, City Attorney

Chair Kocan led the meeting in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Member Cassis asked that "City Calendar" be placed under Matters for Discussion.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Sprague:

No one from the audience wished to speak.

There was no Correspondence to share.

Member Sprague told the Planning Commission that the Budget Committee is bringing the budget forward on February 9, 2005. The Environmental Committee needs to provide their input prior to that date.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth stated that every Planning Commission member should have received their own copy of the Master Plan. It included the Fiscal Analysis as well.

Ms. McBeth said at that the January 10, 2005 City Council meeting the following items were heard. Legacy Parc went forward with a new clubhouse plan with the amenities placed within the setbacks; it was approved. They first came before the City Council on December 20, 2004. They went to the ZBA in early January to request a variance on their pending design, but no conclusion was reached. The Applicant brought forward a different plan that met setbacks, instead of returning to the ZBA. City Council directed Staff and the City Attorney to work on a text amendment that would allow more discretion under the RUD option for City Council waivers. When the language is ready, it will come before the Planning Commission for a Public Hearing and a recommendation. If the text amendment is approved, Legacy Parc may come forward to City Council with an amendment to their approved request.

Also, the Ivanhoe-Huntley rezoning and Wellington Ridge PRO went before the City Council. Both items were recommended for denial by the Planning Commission, and City Council denied both requests.

Ms. McBeth introduced Rob Hayes, the new City Engineer. Mr. Hayes is the supervisor of Ben Croy and Brian Coburn. He holds a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from the US Military Academy at West Point, a master’s degree in construction engineering and an MBA from the University of Michigan. He has most recently worked for PM Environmental in Lansing and URS Corporation in Farmington Hills.

Ms. McBeth also introduced Mark Spencer, the new Planner. He recently worked for Pittsfield Charter Township, advancing to the position of Senior Planner. He was also the Assistant to the Township Supervisor in Big Rapids. He holds a bachelor’s degree in geography, with a certificate in urban planning from California State University in San Bernardino. He has completed the coursework for a master’s program in rural geography at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. He also holds the AICP certification.

Consideration on the request of David Gumenick of Novi Developments LLC, for approval of a one year Preliminary Site Plan extension. The subject property is located in Section 10, on the north side of Twelve Mile Road, between Dixon and Novi Roads. The subject property is approximately 4.46 acres and is zoned OS-1, Office Service.

Consideration of the request of the City of Novi, for approval of a Revised Final Site Plan for the addition of a radio communication antenna at the West Park Water Booster Station. The subject property is located in Section 9, on the northeast corner of West Park Drive and Twelve Mile Road in the I-1 (Light Industrial) District. The subject property is 0.14 acres.

Moved by Member Cassis, seconded by Member Sprague:

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Singh Development for Uptown Place for a recommendation to City Council for Preliminary Site Plan approval with a PD-2 (Planned Development) Option and Storm Water Management Plan approval. The subject property is in Section 14, south of 12 Mile between Novi and Meadowbrook roads in the R-C, Regional Center District. The project is a proposed mixed-use development with 148 residential units and approximately 22,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space. The subject property contains approximately 8.0 acres.

The recently adopted Master Plan for Land Use recommends PD-2, Planned Development Option, uses for the site, as well as for the property immediately to the west. To the south, the Waltonwood of Novi development is recommended for PD-1 land uses. To the east, the land is recommended for office uses. To the north, single family uses are recommended for the Tollgate Farms property.

The subject property is zoned RC, Regional Center, as are the properties to the east and west. To the south, the property is zoned RM-1, Low Density Multiple Family. To the north, the property is zoned R-A, residential acreage.

In 2001 and 2002, Singh Development proposed a text amendment that provides standards for mixed use developments with the PD-2 Option that was reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council. Numerous meetings were held with the Planning Commission before City Council adopted the Ordinance language. The main change was that standards for mixed use buildings with residential components were added to this option at that time.

Following a Pre-Application meeting in July of 2003, the Applicant submitted a Preliminary Site Plan. A number of items were identified for the Applicant’s consideration and the plans were submitted two more times in an effort to refine the plan and bring it closer to meeting Ordinance requirements.

The submitted plans show a mixed-use development with 148 residential units and 21,969 square feet of retail and restaurant space. The proposed building contains parking garages, a clubhouse room, swimming pool, leasing office, and associated residential uses. The application is being reviewed under R-C, Regional Center zoning with the PD-2 Option which requires a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the City Council for approval or denial of the proposed site plan.

The Planning Review indicates that the Preliminary Site Plan is not recommended for approval, because of three issues.

A ZBA variance is needed for exceeding the maximum building height of three stories and 45 feet allowed, four stories and 47 feet 10 inches proposed. A detailed memo was provided to the Planning Commissioners in a supplemental packet yesterday indicating the relationship of the height of the building to the density limitations provided by the Zoning Ordinance. The building is considered four stories in height, while the RC district allows only three stories. Additionally, the Ordinance allows increased density with taller buildings (buildings four stories and greater) and the plan was reviewed using those greater densities. Therefore, if the plans are not approved for four stories, it is the Planning Department’s interpretation that the proposed plans are over in density. The Applicant has indicated the desire to proceed with the plans as presented and seek the necessary variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

The location of loading spaces in east and west side yards is also a concern. The Ordinance requires loading areas to be in the rear yard. The Applicant has intends to seek the necessary variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

A determination must be made on whether the intent of the Ordinance is met for the streetscape amenities. The use of decorative, pedestrian-scale parking lot lighting, public pathways, and other similar features shall be an integral part of any site plan as well as amenities including lighting, landscape plantings, and other amenities that reflect a consistent residential theme. The landscape plans (Sheets L-3 and L-4) show a number of the amenities along the north side of the proposed building, including benches, planters, urns, decorative pavement, and other amenities. Most of the amenities are shown on the north side of the building, and only sidewalks, landscaping and lighting is shown along other sides of the building. In its recommendation to City Council, the Planning Commission may wish to make a determination whether the intent of the above referenced sections of the Ordinance are met, or whether additional amenities should be requested along the south, east and west sides of the property.

The Landscape Review does not recommend approval due to the Planning Commission Waiver required for the lack of the landscaped berm along Twelve Mile in order to allow the decorative screen wall, as proposed.

The Traffic Review does not recommend approval of the Preliminary Site Plan due to the need for a City Council Waiver of Design and Construction standards to allow a deceleration taper within 100 ft of an existing taper on Twelve Mile.

The Civil Engineering Review recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan and recommended approval of the Storm Water Management Plan as presented, with additional items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan Review.

The Fire Marshals review indicated that the proposed plan meets requirements.

The Façade Review indicated that the proposed plan meets Ordinance requirements, and approval is recommended.

Mike Kahm of Singh Development addressed the Planning Commission. He told the Planning Commission that Singh initially approached the City about doing a mixed use development along Twelve Mile. They saw it as an asset to the City and to the Twelve Mile corridor. This concept was attractive to them because it is adjacent to the Walton Wood Senior Housing development, and the proposed concept would likely attract empty nesters. It would have concierge services, covered parking, etc. It would function somewhat like the continuum of care concept, where this would be the independent living quarters for residents who don’t yet need Walton Wood’s assistant living.

He said that the design of the building took many years. They were trying to accentuate the architectural character of the area, and provide a nice mixed-use look and provide some retail and a restaurant. The Taubman Company originally owned this site. They are looking for a development that would be complementary to the mall, not competition.

Some of the amenities proposed would include common areas, a indoor/outdoor swimming pool on an elevated veranda, parking, etc. The entries to the lower level parking are on the east and south, and the next level of parking, which is the full level, would be accessed from the east and west. These areas are accessed by three elevators.

Mr. Kahm said that the grade of the land must be considered. There is a 28-foot grade drop from the north at Twelve Mile, to the south at the Walton Wood property line. Because of that grade drop, the average grade is forcing the development about the allowed elevation (45 feet). They propose going to the ZBA for a variance, with the hardship being the natural topography of the site. The full level of parking is therefore exposed by more than 50% and is considered in the height calculation.

Mr. Kahm said they are also requesting a waiver for the greenbelt buffer along the front; they would prefer a wall instead of a berm. The wall is more conducive to the character of the building and of the area.

Mr. Kahm spoke of the loading areas. He said that there are dumpster areas planned for the east and west sides of the building. The dumpsters are within the inside of the building. The garbage company will open and close the doors. This is how it is done at Northville’s Main Center building. He said there is a dumpster on both sides because the retail is split with a lobby into the residential. There is a rear corridor serviced from the east and the west. Delivery trucks will also use this corridor. The functionality of the building is urban in character. These locations are necessary for the building to function properly. Mr. Kahm said there is an issue about the private road along their west property line. They suffer from the "double frontage."

The rear loading area is principally for residential move-ins and move-outs.

Mr. Kahm told the Planning Commission that there is a slight drop in the floor level from the north to the south of the building. It is a two-foot drop, at both the second and third floors. This was done to keep the height of the building down, so the variance issue wasn’t as severe. In retrospect, this would require steps in the corridor. Functionally, this was not a good idea. It creates future operational issues. Singh would opt to eliminate those ramps and steps in the corridor, which will further aggravate the height of the building. He explained that it doesn’t make sense to address one problem by creating another.

Mr. Kahm said that the PD-2 Option was developed with this project in mind. The building has not really changed that much over the years, as the Option was written. Singh understands that there may be various interpretations of the Option, but Mr. Kahm expressed the intent of their efforts, and the City’s efforts, was to come to a building design like what is being presented this evening.

Chair Kocan said she was on the Implementation Committee when the PD language was designed. She said they discussed the success of mixed use in Northville and read their Ordinance. Their Ordinance allows for three stories and 42 feet. In one meeting they discussed the 20% maximum office/retail component and how the building didn’t need to be five stories tall in order to work. Mr. Khan Pham of Singh stated at the meeting that this district only allows three stories, and that the retail/office can be on the first, second or third stories. Mr. Kahm had indicated that the back of the first floor would be residential. Chair Kocan said that Ordinance reads that there cannot be first floor residential. Also at the meeting, Mr. Schultz, the City Attorney, and Mr. Kahm discussed that Singh had prepared a plan that would meet the intent of the Ordinance.

Chair Kocan said that at that meeting, three floors were discussed. It has always been a discussion of three floors. She wanted this put on the record, because this is what she remembered. She never saw the subject plan in 2002. She said that her understanding of the Ordinance was it allowed three stories. The Planning Commission gave a negative recommendation. City Council did eventually approve the Ordinance.

Chair Kocan said she would like Mr. Kahm to address the fact that this is not a commercial development with residential; it is a residential development with a minute portion of commercial. By going to four stories, and allowing residential on the first floor, the density is much greater, and this concept was never understood by the Implementation Committee, when the Ordinance was written. The 20% maximum office/retail component was not supported by the Implementation Committee, when the Ordinance was written.

Mr. Kahm responded that he has himself to blame, as he worked alongside Rod Arroyo in the development of the Ordinance. From Singh’s perspective, the intent was to provide a mixed use vehicle outside of the Town Center District. First, they had to determine whether mixed use elsewhere in the City was even a favorable concept. After much time, this PD-2 was drafted.

Mr. Kahm said the intent was to allow RM-2 density under its most dense interpretation. At three stories, RM-1 density is achieved. At four or more stories, there is a higher density. That higher level of density was to have been mixed into the mixed use building. This Ordinance was designed, and this concept was developed, based on an urban style of building.

Mr. Kahm said that there are two circular issues regarding residential on the first floor. The Ordinance is worded such that residential shall not be on a floor where residential is closer than four feet to grade. This building is designed, and the intent of the language as drafted, to meet that requirement. The point was that residential of this kind is not meant to be at grade level. The language was intended to provide for sloped grade conditions such as this property, where residential may be incorporated into a first floor area in common with the retail, but would not be at grade level – it would be at least four feet higher. That was Mr. Kahm’s interpretation of the language and how it came about.

Mr. Kahm said he has fixed conditions on all four sides of this site. They do not have the flexibility to fix much of anything. Mr. Kahm said that Twelve Mile is a fixed condition. The mall is a fixed condition. The access road is a contractual obligation of Singh’s. The road will eventually go all the way out to Meadowbrook Road. The easterly part is on another Singh site adjacent to the mall. That is a different project and a different matter. The elevation of the road is fixed. To the east is the rehab center. The point he was trying to make is that the grade situation they face on this site is one which they don’t have a lot of control over. There are four points around them that they must design within. As a result, they have proposed this plan. They could have proposed a gigantic retaining wall on the south side of the property. With respect to the proposed design, Mr. Kahm said the "second level" parking is exposed beyond 50%, so by definition it becomes the ground floor. It is considered as such because of the topography. Member Cassis asked where the residential would be. Mr. Kahm said then, the second floor houses the residential. The retail area is approximately sixty feet deep and abuts the service corridor. The common area is next, with two internal courtyards. This creates a recreational, landscaped area in an enclosed area. This is similar to their elevated courtyard at Main Street.

Chair Kocan confirmed that there was no correspondence and no one from the audience wished to speak. She closed the Public Hearing. She reminded the Planning Commission that this is a recommendation to City Council for Preliminary Site Plan approval and Stormwater Management Plan approval.

Member Avdoulos asked if the Planning Commission received the official Section 2506. Ms. McBeth said that it was. she was afraid that their Ordinance books may be out of date; that is why she sent a fresh copy to them in their packets.

Member Avdoulos said his confusion with reading the Ordinance was that an R-C District exists, and so does the PD-2. This option is intended to encourage development of intensive major non-residential land use, and transitional mixed use buildings with residential components. Member Avdoulos said he liked the image, and he had no issues with its design. He tried to picture it next to DMC and a mall in the background. He could see the tie-in to Walden Woods. He can’t see it tying into anything else. As a stand alone project it looks like a nice project. In reading the Ordinance and interpreting what he read, it is indeed a story too tall, which adds a lot of square footage, which adds a lot of residential to a building that is supposed to be a major non-residential and/or more of a transitional building with some residential component to it.

Member Avdoulos said there is the issue of what constitutes the finished floor and the ground floor. It is deceiving to look at the site plans at the "proposed mixed use" building with a finished floor elevation of 946, which is the main elevation that will be seen from Twelve Mile. To Member Avdoulos, the first finished floor is actually the first floor. The Ordinance states that no residential can be the first floor. He said that this project does not demonstrate a good adherence or good marriage with the Ordinance. He understood the RM-2 District was used to calculate density, but it doesn’t preclude the fact that from his reading, and Staff’s reading, there is a story too much. He wasn’t worried about the 2’10" difference in height, but it is 47’10" to the roof line. He did not know if there would be mechanical units on top of that. That would require a screening element, which may take the building a little higher. As he saw the development, he liked what he saw, and he liked the wall without the berm – which has a character that the City is looking for. He said he just read an article in his packet that said, regarding Main Street, that putting residential above retail may not be the way to go.

Member Avdoulos said that as the project has been presented, and as the Ordinance reads, he thinks more work is needed to get the plan down to where it meets the Ordinance.

Member Wrobel asked if the projected retail was to be non-competitive with the mall, what would that be. Mr. Kahm explained that there would be a 6,000 square-foot restaurant on the west end. There would be businesses such as financial offices, services, card shops, dry cleaners, etc. The retail stores would be more service related. They would not be able to put in, for instance, a jewelry store, clothing store, etc. That would be direct competition. These uses would have to be ancillary.

Member Wrobel asked about the access. There is access from Twelve Mile. If people are coming from the south, they would be cutting through the mall. He couldn’t see people coming up to Twelve Mile and Novi Road to make their right hand turn. Mr. Kahm said that this was discussed with the Taubman Company. Singh planned for a boulevard cut in the road from Twelve Mile. One thing that Taubman recognized is that Singh needs to have a left turn into the roadway. Coming in, there would be access from the finger road, with the ability to turn onto the next road. Eventually, long term, when the future road connects to Meadowbrook, people would be able to come in from Meadowbrook and turn west. That proposed road would be built to City of Novi standards.

Member Wrobel stated that when he travels Meadowbrook to get to the mall, he sees many people cutting through to get to the mall. He said the mindset is that if you don’t have to get on Twelve Mile to get to the mall, then you aren’t going to. Mr. Kahm said that Singh and Taubman are considering how to provide access between this project and the mall. One idea may be a turnaround like the boulevard on the north side of the Novi Town Center. These are long term road improvements that will involve input from the City.

Member Wrobel liked the brick wall in lieu of the berm. He said it was more appropriate in this location.

Member Cassis asked what would happen if one story was eliminated from the project. Mr. Kahm responded that it would result in the demise of the project. It would be impossible to build the project based on the economics. Mr. Kahm said that as embarrassing as this is, they began the process with this building in mind – it hasn’t changed by any great degree. The color of the brick has been changed. There used to be a southern flair to the elevation. Then they decided to go with a more traditional look, using a limestone brick look. The design with underneath parking, its access, and paying attention to Twelve Mile elevation, has been consistently the same since the beginning. Working with Staff on the grade problem has continued, now as a problem of how does his company explain the need for a height or story variance? He understands that requesting a variance is not something well-liked, even by them. However, as they looked at the severity of the grade, and the engineering of the site, they realized it was unavoidable. They concluded that they would tell the City the truth and together it can be decided how this project should be handled.

Member Cassis said he understood that. He said if the first floor is underground, is it possible to put the commercial on the first floor? Mr. Kahm responded no. Member Cassis asked if it was practical to put the retail anywhere on the back of the other elevation. Mr. Kahm said it might be physically practical, but they wouldn’t be able to lease a single square foot. They have to be realistic when they design buildings, to address market forces. Retail needs to have exposure. They learned that the hard way – with some Northville projects, and other projects as well. Retail merchants want drive-by exposure. The only exposure on this site is Twelve Mile. From a practical, real estate perspective, the only location for retail on this project is along Twelve Mile.

Member Cassis said he could have answered the questions rhetorically. He thought it was important for Mr. Kahm’s responses to be heard. Member Cassis said that this is very different and unique site. Mr. Kahm said that explains why the site has sat vacant for all of these years. Member Cassis has followed the history of this project. He has followed the proposals made by Singh in the past. He acknowledged the amount of work they have put into this. What comes to Member Cassis is how can a difficult site be developed with the underlying theme of functionality? (tape ends)

(tape begins) Member Cassis said that the Applicant does the have the right to start the project from that vantage point and carry it south, per the Ordinance. Mr. Kahm responded yes, that he is allowed to go up to that point on Twelve Mile. Member Cassis said that the Applicant must then consider functionality, and how to handle grades, topography and all of those issues. What is left is a nice looking project, and Member Cassis agreed with Member Avdoulos that the place in the front where the commercial is placed, is looking nice. Member Cassis said the contractual agreement with Twelve Oaks Mall does not allow the Applicant to compete, and Singh must abide by that. Member Cassis said that this project would not stand alone as residential, because there are two big huge units to the east and south of Twelve Oaks Mall – six or seven stories tall. Mr. Kahm responded that those were The Enclaves.

Member Cassis said this is an urban project, similar to Gateway on Grand River, with commercial on the first floor and the allowance of residential on the top floor. He understood that variances were being requested. He knows that it was tough to consider the height and so on. He said there was a rigid number for feet set by the Ordinance, and rigid floors demanded by the Ordinance. He did not know if the type of topography and the accurate placement of commercial would allow for another practical design. Member Cassis did not know whether the Ordinance strictly can apply to this development.

Member Cassis said that one might respond that it’s tough, but that is the Ordinance. Member Cassis asked whether the Ordinance could work. Member Cassis stated that no, it cannot work.

Going beyond that, Member Cassis had no objection to having the wall in the front instead of a berm. A berm does not belong on Twelve Mile. Member Cassis was sure that the Applicant would build a decorative wall that is befitting of this nice building. Otherwise, Member Cassis said that commercial tenants will not even rent from Singh.

Member Cassis also liked the idea of the atriums separating the commercial from residential. He has seen this design in Washington, DC and in New York and in San Francisco. He questioned why it wouldn’t work here. For an urban setting, some people may prefer that type of design. Ultimately, they will only be rented by people such as Mr. Kahm suggested – empty nesters – people who prefer that style of living.

Member Cassis liked the amenities, such as the pool. He also liked the atrium concept and how people walking around the retail could enjoy it. Member Cassis found it was important to consider the layout of the road. He found that the Applicant is bound by that road, which cannot be moved. The Applicant is also bound by certain traffic functions that cannot be changed. Therefore, the layout of the building was dictated by all those conditions.

Member Cassis said that the term dumpster may not apply to what is being proposed for this site. Those dumpsters are enclosed and are part of the building. Member Cassis did not find anything wrong with this project. He sees the issues and the variances. As far as the wall, the landscape, the dumpsters, and the practicality of the design (and he agrees that the Chair’s strict interpretation of the Ordinance is sound), the difficulty of the site and the functionality, the Applicant is bound to be able to do a design such as this proposal.

Chair Kocan confirmed with Ms. McBeth that this request would go first to City Council before the Applicant would take the proposal to the ZBA.

Member Sprague understood the question before the Planning Commission is their need to make three findings. He asked if all "Other Special Considerations" must be found, or only some of them. Ms. McBeth responded that the Planning Commission must look at the list and if they found that the project did meet those standards, then they could be used in recommending in favor of the project. If they found that the project didn’t meet certain standards, than those items would be highlighted, possibly, in their recommendation of denial.

Member Sprague rephrased his question, asking whether the Planning Commission could recommend approval if in fact a majority of the considerations were met. Ms. McBeth said that was a fair statement. Member Sprague asked if that were also true of planned development requirements. Ms. McBeth said that was slightly different. In that instance, those would require a City Council finding that those requirements were met. Ms. McBeth said that the Planning Commission could look at those items prior to making their recommendation, but those issues are really left for the Council’s determination.

Member Sprague asked whether the Special Land Use permit was the purview of the Planning Commission. Ms. McBeth said that it wasn’t exactly a Special Land Use approval, but it needs to be shown that the intent of the Special Land Use provisions have been met. Member Sprague looked at the first provision: " ….whether relative to other feasible uses of the site, the proposed use will cause any detrimental impact on existing thoroughfares." He said that the Planning Commission could say, this project has a lot of residential so it will add traffic, so they could, if they wanted to, say that there’s a detrimental impact. He asked whether the Planning Commission has to find that the reason is not the case. Ms. McBeth responded that a feature like that should be considered in conjunction with the Traffic Review and the Traffic Impact Study. Member Sprague replied that it is not just within the context of yes or no, but within the context of the expert’s report as to whether it’s material or not. Ms. McBeth responded affirmatively.

Member Sprague discussed the number of stories. He noted that the second level parking is exposed enough to be considered the ground floor. He asked where this level is exposed. Ms. McBeth said that on page three of the Planning Chart, the average grade of the site is listed at just under 937 feet. That upper level of the parking deck is listed as 934. The lower level parking deck is not counted. It’s just the rear of the building on the south side of the building. That is considered a basement because more than half is below the grade. They begin counting with the upper parking deck. Ms. McBeth pointed to the rear building elevation and showed Member Sprague where the measurement begins. She noted that the second level of parking matches the rest of the building’s window placement. The same materials are being used. She said the façade board was available for review.

Ms. McBeth said this was a technical point of the review. It would look like five stories from the south. It would look like three stories from the north side. The natural topography drops off.

Member Sprague asked, if there were a north building and a south building, would it be feasible to put three-story buildings in those locations. He did not mean from a building perspective, but from the way the planner would evaluate the stories. Ms. McBeth said there would be an infinite number of variables, including modifying the plan. She would not be able to comment without knowing exactly what would be presented. She understood that the Applicant was looking for a certain number for a return on his investment. The Applicant would most likely present a plan that would meet the return that they would expect. She said it could be feasible to put two buildings on the property, but she did not know whether this concept met meet the Applicant’s needs.

Member Sprague said that the fact that there is one large building sets the fact on how the Planning Department determines how to count the floors. Ms. McBeth said yes, and she commented that she found Mr. Kahm’s explanation of the infeasibility of the floor differentiation to be very interesting. There would be a number of things that could be done with this plan, but it might involve changes to the internal levels of the building.

Member Sprague said he was troubled by the fact this project has an extra floor. Certainly, it looks acceptable from Twelve Mile. He asked if there was a point that the building could be stepped down so that from a planning perspective it wouldn’t count as four stories. Ms. McBeth said that the average grade around the entire building is considered. She did not know if it was feasible for the Applicant buried the project by putting to put the first level of the parking deck completely underground. That may have cost issues or engineering problems. Again, the front elevation is set, based on where the property is set back from the Twelve Mile right-of-way. She concluded that there are things that the Applicant can do, and she did not know whether the Planning Commission would like to direct the Applicant in that fashion.

Member Sprague would like to support a project at this location. He said this was a good looking project and could be a good project. But, he said, there is an extra story that is all residential. This makes the project 88% residential. That certainly doesn’t meet the criteria of an intensive major non-residential land use. He could not bring himself past that to say that this is the right project. He understood the restrictions about not competing with the mall and it impacts the feasibility of the plan, but he did not know how the plan could be supported when it seems to be so far afield of what is written in the Ordinance.

Member Sprague was also concerned about what the Planning Commission would say to anyone else who wants to add another floor onto any building in the City. Anybody who wants to build would love to have an extra floor. It’s a lot more square footage and a more profitable use of the land. He did not know how the City could say no to those requests if they say yes to this. This plan seems to be clearly outside of what was written and properly intended in the Ordinance. He said it is complicated by the fact that Singh helped write the Ordinance, and sponsored it. Those are the factors that trouble Member Sprague, and he said he would need to vote for a negative recommendation.

Chair Kocan said that many of the issues she was going to speak on have been addressed. Density is her greatest concern. Chair Kocan said she wanted clarity on the actual site plan. With regard to the offsite change to the incoming road from DMC, Chair Kocan asked Mr. Kahm to educate her on this layout. She said that a driver can come in from DMC and tap into Walton Wood and into the mall. She asked if Singh would be closing off anything. She understood there would be a road between the Walton Wood road and there will be a road that services this development. She asked if the DMC-to-Walton Road would be closed. Mr. Kahm said no. He took the engineering plan and located the traffic signal on the east side of the DMC. That road comes down and circuitously comes into Walton Wood at a certain location he pointed to. He said that Singh will reconfigure the road so that it is straighter. Right now it traverses the topography. Singh will adjust the topography to make the road more north-south. That will intersect with the proposed road that reaches from the finger road, off eventually to Meadowbrook. They will add another connection off that road to Walton Road’s circulation drive. It won’t be as direct of a drive as it is now. There still will be a connection.

Chair Kocan said she understood the design. She asked about the east-west proposed road. She asked whether it would stop at the three-way at this time. Mr. Kahm responded affirmatively. The balance will be built when the development to the east comes on line.

In addition to the building height, there are loading area issues. The interpretation by the City is that there is only one frontage on this lot. Ms. McBeth explained that the road going to the mall is not a public right-of-way. Chair Kocan said that loading is in the rear, which would mean it would have to be on the south side. Ms. McBeth said that was correct. Chair Kocan said what is proposed is the west, south and east sides. Ms. McBeth said that was correct.

Chair Kocan asked if the Staff had a recommendation regarding all of the loading being put on the south side, or is there any kind of recommendation on the proposed loading, and how it is being screened. Ms. McBeth said their recommendation would be that it is more functional as it is currently designed. The Planning Department appreciated the fact that the dumpsters would be inside the building. The Planning Department also feels that the area will be partially screened by the building on the west side, from Twelve Mile, because the building extends out past where the door would be located. On the east side there is not nearly as much visibility. The Planning Department would support this design because of its functionality, and because the dumpsters will be placed within the building. She said it made sense.

Chair Kocan asked about the determination they were asked to make regarding whether the intent of the Ordinance was met meant with regard to the amount of streetscape amenities. She asked whether there was a reason why Singh did not provide streetscape amenities anywhere other than along the north side of the building. She said the Ordinance was pretty specific on this issue – it is to be treated like the Town Center District. She said that was an important part of this. Mr. Kahm said they were a bit confused about that comment. Singh’s intent is to put sidewalks around the entire building. Their intention was, from a landscaping perspective, to place street trees and decorative lighting around the entire building. Periodic benches would be placed. He thought that maybe Singh didn’t do a very good job illustrating that, but the intention was to take the character and apply it around the building. He conceded that the north side was the retail side so some elements of character like pavers would not be duplicated. Mr. Kahm said that the streetscape character would be carried around all four sides. Chair Kocan confirmed with Mr. Kahm that perhaps this waiver was unnecessary because he agreed to work on this issue.

Chair Kocan said that the berm waiver made sense in this situation. She said that when she reviewed this at the Implementation Committee and Master Plan and Zoning Committee level, the discussion was the way the Ordinance was written with the R-C District, the only thing that could be put here without having the mixed use development would have been was a strip mall. Mr. Kahm responded that some kind of retail would occur. Chair Kocan said that there are some other businesses on the outlots around the mall. They are doing fine. Chair Kocan said that the bottom line for her was the intent of the Planning Commission and the Implementation Committee, which to her was very clear, was that this language was for a three-story building having no residential on the first floor. To her, that speaks about density. The request for four stories is a request for density. This is a district that was never planned to have residential in the first place. The topography actually would minimize, had it been three stories, the obtrusiveness. The whole mall and the other buildings do go on a slope. She said this plan jumps out, in her opinion.

She said her concern was the greater density. She did not fault the Applicant for trying to maximize his profit. She does become concerned when the Ordinances are not upheld. She could not support a positive recommendation on this plan. She talked about looking at the plan from the north and south, and from the east and west. She said that because the building is five stories in the back and three stories in the front, she could not support the plan. She said the request goes forward to City Council now, and it is important that the Planning Commission’s comments are out on the table.

Member Cassis asked what the function of the Planning Commission for this review is. Chair Kocan said that the motion should justify to the ZBA and to City Council why four stories should be allowed, what are the undue hardships, and some rationale why they would recommend (or not recommend) the variances. Member Cassis said that naturally, the Planning Commission’s discussion would be forwarded to the ZBA. Aside from that, he asked whether the Planning Commission motion should address the wall instead of the berm, or the streetscape issue, or the dumpster issue. Or, Member Cassis asked, should the motion just turn the whole thing down?

Chair Kocan suggested that the motion could be negative, with suggestions that would make their endorsement positive. She said that there are bullet points that the Planning Commission is responsible for. Those bullets should be made part of the motion. Mr. Gillam said that points A through E that were put forward in the sample motion are the ones in particular that the Ordinance requires the Planning Commission to provide a finding on. This will provide direction to City Council. Above and beyond that, the Planning Commission has the information pertaining to the Special Land Use and planned development in general. There are criteria specific to the PD-2. Any of this information would be helpful to City Council or the ZBA, if it was in the motion.

Moved by Member Sprague, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Member Avdoulos said the Applicant had has hand in developing this Ordinance, based on this site and its existing topography. In his mind, he did not think the plan was presented in a way that was comforting to him, or clear. Member Avdoulos said that he would like to know the square footage of each level. He knew the number of bedrooms and the number of spaces, but he wanted to know the square footage per floor. The Ordinance indicates that mixed use buildings with residential components on properties adjacent to use or zoning districts other than the R-C District (which Member Avdoulos assumed Walton Wood was not R-C), all buildings shall consist of any single use…and in no instance shall the gross floor area of the retail office component of a mixed use development comprise more than 20% of the total floor area of that building. In the same token, the following item says that the ground floor of the building shall not contain any residential use, which means that the floor plan cannot have more than 20% of retail/office, so he asked what the rest of the floor plan was going to be. That, he said, wasn’t delineated clearly enough to get an understanding of where the project was going.

To Member Avdoulos, a parking deck is better than a parking lot. If it was totally parking decks with two or three stories above it, and it was presented that way, and crafted a little bit more clearly, then he could probably support something like that because he liked was he saw. He could see that was a three story development. What he doesn’t see is the drop-off that one really would see. He was hoping that the development was open to the public because it has a drive off of Twelve Mile. That would support itself. One is not matching the other. Basically that is what has been stated. As to sitting at the table to try and figure out what pieces and part the Planning Commission likes and dislikes is kind of odd. A one story variance is a big variance. He reiterated that he did want to see the square footages of the floors.

Member Avdoulos thought there was a lot of commentary that is getting to a design that complements the Ordinance, at least the way the Planning Commission understands it. From his point of view, that is what is lacking at this meeting.

Member Cassis detected that it is not so much the floors, with certain Planning Commission members, as much as what the density is of the residential. He said that was the underlying question. Member Cassis asked Mr. Kahm how many units were on the first floor. Mr. Kahm responded approximately forty units, and the second and third floors each have something like 52 or 53. Member Cassis detected that issue was the problem. To him, he did not find fault in the plan.

Landscape Architect Lance Shipman said that in the spirit of clarity, there was an issue about streetscape amenities. He said there was a two-sided thing to that. He felt that the Planning Commission has addressed very well the planning side in terms of which sides of the building that should be on. One of the issues that also needs to be determined is typically, the guidelines that are followed for those streetscape amenities, in terms of benches, the urns, the bicycle racks, and those types of things, from the T-C District, which is where those guidelines come from, are typically adjacent to the public sidewalk. In this case, they have been brought up to the front of the building. This may or may not be more appropriate. The Planning Commission should make a determination on whether that still meets the intent of those streetscape amenities on the north side of the building.

Chair Kocan confirmed that Mr. Shipman was only speaking of the north side. Mr. Shipman responded that he was talking about the streetscape amenities being against the building as opposed to being on Twelve Mile. Chair Kocan asked about the deficiency along the east, west or south sides. Mr. Shipman said that as determined earlier, that probably does exist from a planning standpoint. His issue was more of addressing the location of those types of treatments. The City typically sees them adjacent to the public sidewalk. In this case they are abutting a building rather than being on the public sidewalk. This may or may not be a better situation. For clarity’s sake, the Planning Commission should make a finding on whether that still meets the intent or the spirit of that guideline.

Chair Kocan said she would go out on a limb to speak for the Planning Commission. She asked Mr. Shipman for his opinion. He responded that from a safety perspective, it is more appropriate to pull these features off of Twelve Mile, as it is a four-lane boulevard. There will be protection from the wall and fence that is proposed on the front. The public still has access to them. He said that in the northwest corner, there is a portal entrance that brings people off of the sidewalk, along the frontage of the building, which will benefit their retail opportunity and allows people to get to those amenities rather than keeping them out on Twelve Mile. In conditions like the City has seen lately, poses a problem with snow removal. It may be more appropriate to have them placed where they have been proposed. Chair Kocan said the rationale that Mr. Shipman just stated was appropriate. She said that Mr. Kahm probably appreciates that Mr. Shipman clarified that. He also said he would be willing to work with the City on the sides of the building to ensure that the intent of the Ordinance is enacted should this development move on. Chair Kocan thanked Mr. Shipman for bringing this forward, and appreciated anytime the Staff brought something forward for the Planning Commission to address.

Moved by Member Sprague, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Chair Kocan called for a ten minute break at 9:24 p.m.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Matt Sosin of Northern Equities for Preliminary Site Plan, Woodland Permit, Wetland Permit and Storm Water Management Plan approval. The subject property is in Section 12, at the northwest corner of Twelve Mile and Haggerty roads in the OST, Planned Office Service Technology District. The subject property is approximately 9.26 acres.

Planner Tim Mr. Schmitt located the property on an aerial map. Twelve Mile is south of the property, and Haggerty Road is directly to the east. Fata Automation is north, and to the west is the Haggerty Corridor Corporate Park. Cabot Drive is located therein. Haggerty Corporate Office Center buildings 1, 2 and 3 are in close proximity to the subject parcel. The former Cookers (soon to be Ruby Tuesday’s) restaurant is on the south side of Twelve Mile. Across Haggerty Road, in Farmington Hills, are several office buildings.

Mr. Schmitt said that the zoning map indicates that the subject property, along with the properties to the north and west are zoned OST, Office Service Technology. To the south, the two properties closest to Haggerty Road are zoned B-3, General Business. The vacant property three parcels down from Haggerty is zoned B-2, Community Business. The properties in Farmington Hills are zoned for office, consistent with the Novi zoning.

The Master Plan for Land Use earmarks the subject property and surrounding site for office uses. This is one of the main areas of the initial OST study and the City did rezone this area to begin that zoning classification. To the south the properties are master planned for community commercial. He noted the location of the utility corridor running through the center of the park.

The wetland map indicates that there is a stream running through the parcel. The topography map proposes to relocate the stream. The MDEQ has approved the movement of this stream and the subsequent upstream wetland enhancements that have been proposed.

There are woodlands on the site. They have been thinned out over the past year. The Applicant has worked with Larry DeBrincat of Vilican Leman to clear a relatively substantial number of dead and dying trees on the site, under the provisions of the Ordinance.

Mr. Schmitt said that the building runs in a southwest-northeast fashion across the center of the property. Parking is available in all directions. The curb cuts are located on Twelve Mile and on Haggerty Road. They are essentially as far away from the intersection as possible. The Road Commission of Oakland County will ultimately have jurisdiction. The City has not yet heard back from their reviewer. Although comments from them are likely, the Planning Department does not expect the location of these curb cuts to change.

Mr. Schmitt said that the Planning Commission has several issues to address. The Planning Review recommends approval of the plan subject to two Planning Commission items. A waiver for the loading zone screening is necessary. The OST Ordinance requires specific screening; however the provisions are directed more to situations where overhead doors for large truck deliveries exist. This building will only see typical office deliveries – the UPS and FedEx trucks, possibly a bank car. The Applicant is proposing to add a loading space at the time of Final Site Plan. They will not be seeking any variance for the actual space. The loading zone will need to be in the rear yard, which is the northwest quadrant of the site. Likely, only one loading space will be provided, given the functionality of the building. There is an atrium in the center of the building, with no entrances on the far ends. He thought it was likely that Northern Equities does not want delivery trucks in the front of the building. The actual location of the loading zone will be determined at the time of Final Site Plan review.

Mr. Schmitt told the Planning Commission that they will have to address is the building height. The Ordinance states that a flat roof building roof is measured from the average grade to the deck of the roof. In this case, the building meets the height requirements for the deck of the roof. However, the two areas over the doorways have small parapet walls that do extend slightly above the maximum height. The Planning Department has not, in the past, recognized this as a variance situation, given that it does not physically increase the height of the building. It is merely an architectural feature. It does not take up large amounts of the building face. The Planning Department would like the Planning Commission to acknowledge this same practice in their review of this building.

The Wetland Review indicates the plan may be approved, subject to minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. The stream is being relocated to run along the far northern property line. It will be channelized along the north and brought down the easterly side to the culvert that takes the flow into Farmington Hills.

The Woodland Review does not recommend approval of the plan.

The Landscape Review indicated that two waivers should be considered by the Planning Commission. The first provides for a wall in lieu of a berm. The berm extends along the majority of the frontage. In the area proposed for a wall, it is broken up a bit. A water feature is proposed behind the wall. It will provide an interesting visual item along a main intersection of the City. The Applicant is also proposing to put evergreen trees in parking lot islands. Mr. Shipman can explain this later. The issue is whether those evergreen trees can count toward the parking lot tree requirement, not whether evergreens are even allowed in a parking lot. Mr. Schmitt pointed at the two very large islands on the north side of the plan that are proposed for the evergreen location. Neither have corner clearance issues or any concern of that nature. It is a question of counting the trees in the parking lot tree requirement.

The Traffic Review and the Engineering Review both indicated the need for a driveway spacing waiver between the Haggerty Road entrance at the far northeast corner and the existing FATA Automation (Elgin) driveway at the south end of their site. Both reviews state they are in favor of the waiver. It pushes the driveways further from the intersection, which is the optimal solution.

The Façade and Fire Department Reviews both gave approval with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

Chair Kocan asked about the evergreen trees. Chair Kocan said that typically evergreens are not allowed in islands, unless the islands are greater than 25 feet. Landscape Architect Lance Shipman responded that the language Chair Kocan quoted was from the previous Ordinance. It is still a policy practice from a safety standpoint. That is about the width necessary to place an evergreen adequately without causing vision problems or having the tree encroach over the curb line, because evergreens branch much lower than canopy trees. The actual language of the current Ordinance stipulates that corner vision clearance is necessary, as long as the Applicant can express that there are no clear vision issues by the placement of those trees. The trees would be permitted within a parking lot area and in this case, Mr. Shipman thought they were placed appropriately in large islands.

Chair Kocan asked if there was prohibition against having evergreens in island. Mr. Shipman said no. Chair Kocan said that typically they don’t count as tree calculation for landscape. Mr. Shipman said that the language for the parking lot landscaping refers to canopy trees, in terms of quantity required. It is based on the formula derived from the impervious surface that is there. The language states canopy trees. In order to count evergreens, it would be in the form of a waiver, to allow the Applicant to count those trees toward their requirement. The language does say canopy and typically that doesn’t include evergreens.

Matt Sosin from Northern Equities addressed the Planning Commission. He told the Planning Commission that the evergreens were proposed on those islands for the purpose of providing color during the winter months. This is a large parking lot because it’s a large building. Because the islands are large, there shouldn’t be a visibility problem. To the extent that Mr. Shipman thinks there might be a problem, Mr. Sosin said he will work with him to resolve it, if the Planning Commission allows the Applicant use evergreens in the count.

Mr. Sosin said that the building is 130,000 square feet of Class A office, similar to the other buildings in the park. Given its location on the corner of Twelve Mile and Haggerty, this is one of the most important pieces in the Northern Equities’ portfolio, and to the City as well. The design of the building and that of the site was based on that concept in mind. This latest design has been underway for two years. Trying to find the right balance to the site brought about several alternatives. Mr. Sosin thought this was their best effort. He said that the site would likely accommodate another 50,000 to 60,000 square feet of building, but more building skewed the appearance of the site. The visibility and presence of this building is important to Northern Equities and the City.

Mr. Sosin said that the woodlands are of low quality trees, as stated in the Vilican Leman review. As Mr. Schmitt pointed out, the City and Northern Equities were in concert, going in and removing the dead ash. The plan before the Planning Commission doesn’t show many dead trees. He thought that both the Planning Department and the Woodland Consultant felt that Northern Equities did a good job.

Mr. Sosin said that the wildlife corridor was also mentioned. Mr. Sosin thought he should mention that the corridor is effectively cut off by Twelve Mile – a six lane boulevard, and Haggerty road – a three or four lane road. There isn’t much of a wildlife corridor. There are no culverts under Twelve Mile or Haggerty Road.

Mr. Sosin said that the Consultant’s decision not to support the plan is likely based on the alternatives that Northern Equities provided. Originally, they intended to go closer to the wetlands. These plans were used to judge whether the plan met the woodlands Ordinance. The problem with the alternatives was mentioned by the Woodland Consultant. Alternative 2 is under-parked by 200 spaces. This design would have required another two acres of parking lot. This alternative may look like it saves two acres, but those two acres would then have been redesigned for the parking deficiency. Alternative 2 also doesn’t provide for dual access for each building. There is not enough square footage on the lot. Building B on both alternatives is a three-story building with very small floor plates. This is not economical and it wouldn’t lease very well. Neither alternative is prudent or feasible compared to the subject plan. They don’t save very many trees over and above the subject plan.

Chair Kocan said this was a speculative building, and if the plan was developed as general office, this plan provides for an excess of 70% parking. Mr. Sosin responded to the speculative comment. Northern Equities tells the banks that a plan is part of the industrial park. A building going up as on its own is considered speculative. Because this building is part of a park with a track record, it is not, strictly speaking, a speculative building. There is at least one 130,000 square foot office user and a 100,000 square foot office user expressing preliminary interest in this building. He did not want to suggest anything more than there are users out there for this building. The Ordinance parking standard is about 4.22 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Most tenants in the Northern Equities buildings require a minimum of five spaces per 1,000. Some of their prospective tenants require six or seven spaces per 1,000. These are not medical firms – they are a variety of uses. For the most part, they have gone to the open office/bull pen style of office. These are very dense users. Twenty years ago, these users would have wanted hardwall offices. Today, in that same space there will be four cubicles. In order to market their buildings, Northern Equities has had to consider this from an economical point of view as well. They have to provide those spaces in order to get tenants. In contrast to the Ordinance, Mr. Sosin understood how the Planning Commission might consider it "over-parked."

Member Sprague had no correspondence and no one from the audience wished to speak. Chair Kocan closed the Public Hearing.

Mr. Schmitt asked to include a few salient points. This plan also proposes some modifications to the overall Haggerty Corridor stormwater plan. The gist of the modification is that there will be a basin along Cabot Drive that will be filled. There will be a basin put in just north of this site (between HCOC 3 and Fata Automation). There will be a weir put in to put water back into the wetlands further to the north and east. He had already mentioned the relocation of the stream.

Mr. Schmitt said there was also a basin to the north of HCOC 3, ("Basin A") that will be filled to provide additional parking for that site. There are a few offsite changes of which the Planning Commission should be aware. These issues should be considered in conjunction with the Applicant’s request for a Stormwater Management Plan approval. Civil Engineer Ben Croy confirmed that these offsite improvements would be made in conjunction with this approval. Mr. Croy added that there are still issues to be worked out during the Final Site Plan review. He was comfortable with the concept proposed on this plan. Mr. Sosin explained that the "offsite" means offsite to Columbus, but still on Northern Equities’ properties.

Member Sprague asked whether the driveway spacing waivers were unavoidable. Mr. Croy said that they could be placed in a manner that avoids the waiver, but that it would that just further impact the intersection. It’s a trade-off, and the Road Commission will give their input too. There is still a decent amount of space between the drives. Mr. Sosin said that they received comments from the Road Commission, and the spacing issue was not addressed by them.

Member Sprague asked about the loading screen issues. Mr. Schmitt responded that the Planning Commission will need to waive the request subject to the area being screened by the landscape design approved by Lance Shipman. There is a quirk in the OST Ordinance and Mr. Shipman will work it out. The area will not be screened by the u-shaped building.

Member Sprague asked how many trees would be required if the evergreens weren’t counted. Mr. Shipman said the parking lot requires 194 trees. They have provided 159 canopy trees. They have provided 22 evergreens. They still would have to provide an additional 13 trees on their next submittal. Mr. Shipman questioned whether the lot could accommodate 35 canopy trees. Mr. Sosin said that they would be providing the additional 13 trees.

Member Sprague asked about the woodlands. Woodland Consultant Larry DeBrincat referred to a map, and pointed at some woodland areas south of Twelve Mile and at the site of the old restaurant. The woodlands on the site are defined as a dense cover woodland area. There is a large dense covered woodland area north of that as well. This is a high quality hardwood forested area – oak, hickory, etc. Most is being preserved. The woodlands on another site that he pointed to is not dense – even though the woodland map indicated that it was a dense cover area. He was unsure of what has happened over the years. The emerald ash borer has had a great impact on the site, as Mr. Schmitt has indicated. Mr. DeBrincat has been working with Northern Equities over the past six months on the removal of over 100 dead trees. This was verified in the field. They worked on a plan to minimize damage to the existing tree cover.

Mr. DeBrincat said that when there is a high quality area and a woodland area, it is best to link these areas together. There is also a woodland in Farmington Hills. They wish to prevent isolated woodlands for the wildlife. In this case, even though it is not a high quality area, it could act as a linkage area. He conceded that Twelve Mile is a rather wide roadway, and this makes it very difficult for wildlife to travel across. He said that would also be the case for Haggerty Road. Mr. DeBrincat said that he received a letter from Mr. Sosin. He was told that "Alternate 2" was deficient by 200 parking spaces. Mr. DeBrincat understood that it was 125-200 spaces. Had Mr. DeBrincat known that when their review was underway, they would have been more reserved. They would probably not have given the subject plan a negative recommendation. Adding as many as 200 spaces would reduce that area in "Alternate 2", whereby it Mr. DeBrincat did not think the woodland would function as a wildlife travel lane. His concern regarding that area has changed significantly since reading that letter.

Member Sprague liked the looks of the project. He said it was an important corner. He appreciated that the building was 40,000-50,000 square feet smaller than what it could have been. He had no hesitations in supporting the project.

Member Wrobel liked the project and the way it sat on the lot. He appreciated the extra parking. Deficient parking causes problems for the adjacent properties. He asked how far west of the next entrance is the next Twelve Mile turnaround for traffic wanting to head east. Mr. Sosin said that two years ago he approached the Road Commission of Oakland County and asked about putting a turnaround just west of Cabot Drive on Twelve Mile. They refused the request, for reasons Mr. Sosin could not remember. Many of Mr. Sosin’s tenants have complained that they have to drive down past M-5 to get on Twelve Mile going east. Northern Equities paid to have a turnaround put in just west of Cabot Drive, so the distance between that and this project is minimal.

Member Avdoulos asked whether there was any intent to join this property to Haggerty Corporate Park. Mr. Sosin said this building would be a stand alone. Mr. Sosin said one of the reviews commented on shared access to Haggerty 3; there is about, curb-to-curb, a fifteen-foot grade difference between the two sites. He did not think it was feasible to connect the two. He noted that it already has two means of egress.

Member Avdoulos said the nail was hit with the statement that this is an important corner for the City. Member Avdoulos, as a member of the Master Plan and Zoning Committee and the Implementation Committee, has been looking for ways to keep the intersections as pleasing as possible. Member Avdoulos said this building sits nicely on the site, on a 45-degree angle. He appreciated the fact that the corner was designed with something other than plantings. The water feature will be there. There will be a low wall. It provides a nice view shed to the building and is anchored by landscaped elements on either side. The building in and of itself complements the Haggerty Corporate Park buildings, with the exception of the stairwells on the ends that are surrounded in limestone. Mr. Sosin said that was called "cut stone."

Member Avdoulos said this is a building that will be viewed everyday. He understands the conditions of the Twelve Mile traffic. He knows where the turnarounds are. He has to alter his course of driving to avoid where the traffic backs up. He said this was going to be an important building. He was glad to see something other than a gas station or pharmacy. He wanted to ensure that the highest quality of construction and adherence is put on this project. He said this was the beginning of Novi. Further down the road is the Tollgate property, which the City would like to see preserved in some fashion. Across from Tollgate is a medical property that has been brought forward to the road, and has a lot of parking behind it. Member Avdoulos was not a big fan of the parking in front of the subject building, but with the water feature and islands, he felt the new Landscape Ordinance really helped this design. He liked the evergreens in the islands.

Member Avdoulos liked that Mr. DeBrincat brought forward his concerns. He assumed that the woodlands in question were in the southeast corner of the site. Mr. DeBrincat used the map to show where the woodlands were located. Based on the plan that is being proposed, that woodland area would be destroyed. Member Avdoulos asked whether there was an alteration to the plan that could save the trees. Mr. DeBrincat said that he did not think so.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Sprague:

Member Cassis complimented Mr. Sosin on the project. Member Cassis remembered when this site was before the Planning Commission for a restaurant. It was rejected. He thought this was good project for the corner. The building looks good. He said that the City wanted to make a statement on that corner, and he felt that this building did not. He presumed that the building met the Façade Ordinance. Mr. Sosin responded affirmatively. Member Cassis agreed with the waiver for the wall.

Member Cassis told Mr. Sosin that the City tries to put a City sign on every entry point into the City. Mr. Sosin said that it would be nice to be able to work something into the plan. Mr. Sosin said that the wall hadn’t been 100% designed, as this was a Preliminary Site Plan. He said that the concept was worth exploring.

Landscape Architect Lance Shipman said that there was a task force looking into the placement of welcome signs for the City of Novi. He said that this intersection is a primary location for the placement of such a sign. At a concept level, the actual placement of that sign would be in the median of Twelve Mile. There is not one there now. Farmington Hills had one, but it disappeared some time ago. That would be their choice for the location, but he appreciated keeping the communication open with Mr. Sosin, just in case the County won’t let Novi place a sign in the median. He said that maybe there is a potential to place something on the wall.

Member Cassis said that he doubted that the County would allow something in the median. Member Cassis said he would not like to see the City sign placed in a gully like how it is placed at Grand River. Member Cassis supported the motion.

Member Lipski said that the plan was excellent. He said the plan was very well presented and he thought that Mr. Sosin was very professional in his deference to the Planning Commission. Member Lipski suggested a blue neon sign welcoming people to Novi and the 50’s Festival. He supported the motion.

Member Pehrson asked whether the 13 trees needed to be addressed in the motion. Chair Kocan said that the Applicant indicated he would be adding those trees.

Chair Kocan asked whether the first stipulation of the motion removed the opportunity for the Planning Commission to ever review a parapet again. Mr. Schmitt responded said that this is because of a narrow interpretation that has been made in the past. This feature often happens at the building entrance. If someone wants to have a parapet along the entire top of their building, the City is going to discuss the building height. If it is something narrowly directed at entrances or architectural features, it would fall under this affirmation. It is something that has been done in the past and is not entirely out of the ordinary. It is not adding to the physical floor height. It is still a 46-foot tall building to the deck. It is an architectural enhancement. Chair Kocan did not want to give a blanket approval. She appreciated the Planning Commission having the opportunity to discuss this item.

Chair Kocan was concerned about the additional parking. She said the rationale for the amount of parking made sense. She said it was unfortunate that every tree would be lost. She said the size of the building must be considered.

Chair Kocan said that as long as there is dual access, the Planning Commission cannot require another access. Mr. Schmitt said that as long as there are two areas of egress, the recommendation is not to put the requirement on another project. There have been issues in the past. Chair Kocan said that as a Planning Commission, they like to have cross access. Mr. Schmitt said by all means, but in this case they do have two means of egress.

Chair Kocan said that the Traffic Review discussed the skewing of parking spaces. She was recently at ABC Warehouse and it is a nightmare to park in their parking lot. She asked that the Applicant take that into consideration. Mr. Sosin said there was one awkward section of six or seven spaces that will be removed. The bumpout that was referred to in the letter is a park that is used by Trinity Health. That will be cut back to be more rational and reasonable.

Chair Kocan said that it is difficult to see around the corners in the parking lots at Best Buy and Office Max, with all of the angles in the building. The ninety-degree turn at Office Max is ridiculously tight. She wanted to ensure the Traffic Consultant was reviewing these items, particularly with the angles on the subject building. Mr. Sosin said he believed they responded to the Traffic Consultant’s comment. Chair Kocan supported the motion.

Mr. Shipman said this project allows the Planning Commission to address a new landscape requirement, which is the street tree requirement. These trees are put in place by the Applicant. In this case, the project fronts on two County roads. The Lewis Medical building will not be putting in street trees within the Haggerty Road right-of-way, and the City has been notified of this. This is also true of some other buildings along Twelve Mile. Mr. Shipman said that although these trees are on the plan, they will not be on the site when it develops because Oakland County will not give permission for those trees.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Pehrson:

The Planning Commission members turned in their grammatical changes for incorporation into the minutes. Chair Kocan noted that Mr. Bowman was speaking on behalf of Cadillac Asphalt, and that the word "wall" was left out of one of the sections on page 10.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Sprague:

The Planning Commission members turned in their grammatical changes for incorporation into the minutes.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Sprague:

There were no Consent Agenda Removals.

Member Cassis said that the City Calendar was beautiful. He was disappointed that the Planning Commission, ZBA and Parks and Recreation members were not pictured. Otherwise, he had all the respect and admiration for those who put the calendar together.

There were no Supplemental Issues.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Moved by Member Sprague,

Motion carried 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 10:39 p.m.

MON 01/17/05 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

TUE 01/18/05 MASTER PLAN AND ZONING COMMITTEE 6:30 PM

MON 01/24/05 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 01/26/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 01/31/05 IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MEETING 6:00 PM

TUE 02/01/05 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

MON 02/07/05 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 02/09/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 02/21/05 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

Transcribed by Jane Schimpf, March 15, 2005 Signature on File

Date Approved: March 23, 2005 Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date