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

Present: Members John Avdoulos, Victor Cassis, David Lipski (7:43 p.m.), Lynn Kocan, Lowell Sprague, Wayne Wrobel

Absent: Members Andrew Gutman (excused), Mark Pehrson (excused)

Also Present: Barbara McBeth, Director of Planning; Tim Schmitt, Planner; Lance Shipman, Landscape Architect; Ben Croy, Civil Engineer; David Gillam, City Attorney; Kelly Karll, Wetland Consultant

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

Moved by Member Sprague, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Motion to approve the Agenda of July 13 27, 2005.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Chair Kocan told the Planning Commission that the Wixom Master Plan was approved by the Oakland County Coordinating Committee, by a vote of 3-0.

There is an Implementation Committee meeting scheduled for Monday, July 18, 2005. Land banking and pet resorts will be discussed.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth explained to the Planning Commission that Roundtable Discussion held earlier had been summarized, a copy of which was included in their packets. City Council had directed the Planning Commission to discuss Tax Base Alternatives in the OST District. Planner Mark Spencer separated the information into categories: Potential Zoning Ordinance changes in the OST District, other Ordinance changes, Stormwater Maintenance Agreement process, other process issues, promoting the City of Novi and policy changes. The items were listed in rank order, and recommendations and comments were provided for the Planning Commission and City Council to consider. Ms. McBeth asked for comment and said that she would then forward the document to City Council in a few weeks. Chair Kocan suggested that the information may result in a joint Planning Commission and City Council meeting. She said that there weren’t enough specifics and that City Council should point this project into the direction they desire. Developers suggested increased heights but did not propose a new height. They endorsed a change to the Sign Ordinance but did not get specific. Developers suggested changes in acceptable façade materials. Chair Kocan said that for every acre of property rezoned from OST must be replaced elsewhere in the City.

Member Sprague asked if recommendations should go forward from the Planning Commission. Ms. McBeth said that if the Planning Commission would like to forward recommendations they could do so. Chair Kocan said that it could be added to a future agenda.

Member Cassis liked the grid and said there was a lot of information. He hoped that there would be some resulting action. He did not want the information to sit on the shelf. Chair Kocan wondered how much time the Planning Commission or the Staff should work on a "specific" without first finding out if City Council endorsed that idea. Member Cassis felt that most of the issues that were brought up were items that are now understood. He said that City Council would not be surprised by the list. He thought a session, with some preparation, could reach some conclusions on these issues.

Member Avdoulos said some of the items are similar in nature. The list might whittle down to twelve items. A presentation to City Council could summarize this information. He thought the information should go through one extra step in order to reduce the "case load."

Chair Kocan thought something should go forward to City Council so that they knew that the Planning Commission has accomplished a portion of their request. Ms. McBeth thought that the information could be forwarded to the City Council in one of their off-week packets. They could then have a chance to absorb it. Then, the Planning Commission could get some direction. The attached memorandum was meant to summarize the information. The material could also be presented in the order of priority from the developer’s point of view.

Member Avdoulos agreed that something should forward as a progress report.

Member Sprague liked the idea of a joint meeting. That, he said, could be the Planning Commission’s recommendation. The Planning Commission could put together a proposed agenda. There are areas where the City Council should give direction. The Planning Commission would rather have direct input than a submittal in writing.

Chair Kocan said that the Administrative Committee would put together an Agenda and pass it on.

Member Lipski arrived at 7:43 p.m.

Ms. McBeth said that at the last City Council meeting, the Schafer (Wisinsky) Rezoning came back for reconsideration and it was approved with a PRO. This will come before the Planning Commission and return to City Council within ninety days. The R-A to R-1Rezoning at Eleven Mile and Taft Road was approved. The Rezoning north of Twelve Mile east of Dixon Road was denied.

There was no Consent Agenda.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Patrick Cavanaugh of Shannon Development for Preliminary Site Plan, Wetland Permit, Woodland Permit, and Storm Water Management Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 10 on the north side of Twelve Mile, west of Novi Road, in the OS-1, Office Service District. The subject property is 8.1 acres and the Applicant is proposing seven one-story office buildings with a total square footage of 50,280.

Planner Tim Schmitt located the property on an overhead picture. The Twelve Mile frontage is zoned OS-1 and master planned for Office and rear is master planned for residential. To the west is Novi Forum. To the east is the Gumenick Office Building. To the south is Twelve Mile. To the northeast is Carlton Forest, zoned RM-1. The northerly Akarakcian property is zoned R-1. The Fountain Walk area is zoned R-C. The properties are consistent with their Master Plan designation.

This project is the subject of a Consent Judgment. The lawsuit was filed by Carlton Forest regarding SAD 155 (improvements to Twelve Mile) At the time the property had duel Master Planning – office in the front and residential to the rear. There was question as to whether residential was viable. A conceptual plan for this property was approved at the time of the lawsuit. Only parking lot and landscaping was to be placed near the border of Carlton Forest. The Applicant came forward with a plan that did not touch that area at all, although there were landscaping requirements spelled out. The Applicant amended the Consent Judgment and now the northern area will be left in its natural state via a conservation easement.

There are no wetlands on this property. There is a Wetland Permit involved because of the discharge of stormwater into a wetland. A further hydrological test is required on the wetland to the east. There are no regulated forests. There are three regulated trees so a permit is required.

There will not be development adjacent to the Carlton Forest Property. The northerly building juts slightly above the previous line, and there will be a 35-foot area of landscaping and buffering.

The Planning Review indicated that most items have been taken care of. The Consent Judgment issues have been resolved. The Traffic Review and Fire Review noted minor items. The Façade Review was favorable. The Engineering Review noted that there are easements required for the stormwater discharge. That should not be a problem, though it is not the City’s responsibility to obtain those easements; it is the responsibility of the Applicant.

There are landscape items to address. The Applicant believes that they will be able to meet the requirements. They will add parking spaces and widen the islands out. There will be some tweaking around the edges of the site to meet the appropriate greenbelt. The air conditioning units will be ground mounted and they will need to meet the setback.

Mr. Schmitt said that the site is deficient for 100% medical parking. The Applicant will likely meet the requirements with their modifications. If they can’t meet the number then they will not be able to be 100% medical.

Member Kocan asked whether the viability of the wetland is considered during the easement process. Mr. Schmitt said that it should take that into consideration.

Matthew Quinn represented the Applicant. He introduced Pat Cavanaugh, owner, and his architect. This is a seven-building office park that will be a condominium. This is unique but will be well received along Twelve Mile. He said that the easement will be addressed. The Consent Judgment has been entered. 2.4 of the 8.11 acres will be conserved on the north end. There will be a 35-foot buffer. The visibility of this property will be protected.

Member Sprague read the correspondence into the record:

R. Kissling, 28113 Carlton Way: Objected for the preservation of wetlands, woodlands and habitat.

Tim Chu, 28385 Carlton Way: Objected for traffic reasons.

Chair Kocan closed the Public Hearing after determining no one from the audience wished to speak.

Member Sprague confirmed with Mr. Schmitt that the parking lot landscaping issues were being adequately addressed. He confirmed with Mr. Quinn that the easements would not go forward until after Preliminary Site Plan approval was given. He confirmed with Mr. Schmitt that the easements did not have to be a stipulation of the approval since the project couldn’t go forward without them.

Landscape Architect Lance Shipman said that it was the Applicant came forward to request the change to the Consent Judgment to remove the berm stipulation. That Consent Judgment language was put in place with the assumption that only parking could be placed on the property. Since the parking will not be there, it made more sense to the Applicant to leave the area in its natural state. Mr. Shipman located the area where the Conservation Easement would be in place and indicated that there would also be a 35-foot landscaped area. Mr. Shipman said there is a berm on the Carlton Forest Property. They also have a retaining wall to accommodate the slope change. Carlton Forest sits very high. A berm in this area would not be productive. The easement is a superior plan. Mr. Shipman said that it was a pleasure working with this Applicant on the solution.

Mr. Shipman said there was only one corner of one Carlton Forest building that would have a view of the development. It will be only slightly screened that will become more dense. He said that they would see the roof of this project, but at least the air conditioning units were not going to be rooftop units. The proposed evergreens will take hold in two to five years, and then they will begin to grow. These are one story buildings. The Consent Judgment required that these evergreens be ten feet, not seven or eight feet. They are required to provide a ten foot staggered row. Member Sprague asked Mr. Shipman if the Consent Judgment resulted resulting in a superior design. Mr. Shipman said that the modification to the Judgment provided a better site plan. With rear yard parking there would also have been light poles to consider. This is a permanent conservation easement that is tied to a Consent Judgment. City Council would have to approve any further changes to the Consent Judgment. City Attorney David Gillam concurred.

Member Cassis said that this was a win-win plan. He applauded the site condominium, single story project. He said that Carlton Forest residents should be pleased. The Conservation Easement is an added bonus. He thought that this was a good plan.

Member Wrobel liked the project, particularly the interior parking lot design. Mr. Shipman described the buffer between the building and the easement area, and said this buffer actually provides for even more landscaping in that area.

Member Avdoulos asked about the banked parking request. Mr. Schmitt said that there is another area on the site that may be considered for additional parking. Mr. Schmitt said that they are not asking for landbanking, but since the site was designed intelligently – providing a potential additional parking area – the Applicant would be allowed to come forward with a plan showing more parking.

Member Avdoulos noted that the masonry screen walls will be moved to ten feet from the property line. Mr. Schmitt said that the original plan was somewhat spaced out, and that they had the luxury of being able to shift the buildings in order to accommodate this change to the screen wall.

Member Avdoulos noted a change to the drive. Mr. Schmitt said that Mr. Cavanaugh liked the idea of a shared driveway but was unable to design it alongside Novi Forum. The change to the drive will be reviewed on the Final Site Plan.

Member Avdoulos noted the hydrologic analysis on the wetland. Wetland Consultant Kelly Karll told that the volume of stormwater runoff was the issue, and what would the change in elevation be to that wetland. Was the change significant enough to change the vegetation? The combined runoff of the area’s projects will be considered.

Member Avdoulos said that this design respects its neighbors – design, height, shielding the parking, complementary materials. This was a sensitive design. It acts as a transitional piece to taller office buildings.

Moved by Member Avdoulos:

Chair Kocan asked Ms. Karll whether she would recommend that the viability of the wetland be made part of the easement. Ms. Karll answered affirmatively. This could be part of the Wetland Permit and the Stormwater Management Plan. Mr. Gillam said that this was acceptable, and that he would look for this language between the Applicant and the adjacent property owner.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Chair Kocan asked that, "An agreement to address continued prosperity of existing wetlands," or something similar, be added to the motion. Mr. Gillam suggested, "An Agreement with the adjacent property owner to address the continued prosperity of the existing wetlands." Member Avdoulos agreed to the language and said it could be added to the Stormwater motion as well. Member Wrobel agreed to the language.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Wrobel:

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Sprague:

In the matter of Shannon Development for Stoneridge Office Park, SP04-56, motion to grant approval of the Stormwater Management Plan, subject to: 1) The comments in the Staff and Consultant review letters being addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal; and 2) An Agreement with the adjacent property owner to address the continued prosperity of the existing wetlands; for the reason that the plan meets the intent of the Stormwater Management Plan.

Member Cassis expressed his approval of the manner in which this Consent Judgment evolved into a better plan.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Partha Chakravartti of Eden Garden, LLC for Preliminary Site Plan, Site Condominium, Wetland Permit, Woodland Permit and Storm Water Management Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 30, north of Nine Mile, east of Napier Road in the R-A, Residential Acreage District. The subject property is 13.2 acres and the Applicant is proposing a 7-unit single-family site condominium.

Planner Tim Schmitt located the property on a map. It is located in the bend of the road. It is south of Legacy Parc and the Singh Trail. It is east of Provincial Glades. The ITC corridor is also to the east. The properties are all zoned R-A, and master planned for residential, and public park in the Singh Trail area.

There are substantial wetlands on the property. There are regulated woodlands; this property is very near to the core habitat area.

The Applicant is proposing seven single family homes. The design is a cul-de-sac, and the first home will front Nine Mile. The next four lots will access through the road, and the remaining two lots are proposed with a shared driveway through the wetlands.

The Planning Review indicated that two items will have to go before City Council. A sidewalk is proposed for only one side of the street; the Planning Department approves of this request. This would reduce the disturbance of the natural features. The second request is for a gated access, though historically the City has frowned upon these entries.

A ZBA Variance will be required for lots 6 and 7 due to the fact that they don’t have frontage onto a public road (Subdivision Ordinance Section 4.02.a.6). The Applicant is proposing a shared driveway, which is not considered a road.

The Wetland Review recommended approval of the plan. The road crossing the wetland is considered minor. The MDEQ Permit has been issued.

The Woodland Review did not recommend approval. The Applicant is proposing an 81% woodland mortality rate. Woodland Consultant Doris Hill thought the number was substantially lower.

The Landscape Review indicated that a waiver is necessary for the Nine Mile ROW berm, near lots 1 and 2.

The Traffic Reviews noted only minor comments.

The Engineering Review indicated that the road width for lots 7 and 8 will require a variance from City Council. The Applicant is proposing twelve feet and the standard is 28 feet. The gated access will require a City Council variance.

Mr. Partha Chakkarvarti was the Applicant. He explained that this project is the result of four friends looking to build near one another. They hope to preserve the natural features. He thanked the City Staff for all of their help.

Chair Kocan opened the floor for comment:

Chair Kocan asked Mr. Chakkarvarti the square footage of the homes. He responded that they would be 3,500 to 4,000 square feet minimum. Chair Kocan asked him if he was going to clear the building footprint. He responded that only the roadway will be cleared, and each individual will be responsible for their own lot. He felt that only one or two trees would be removed per footprint.

Member Wrobel thought this project was an interesting concept. He asked if any other options for the shared parking were explored. He did not have a problem with a gated community. He asked what the time frame was for this project. Mr. Chakkarvarti said that he was hoping for a two year period for this project. Options were explored for the driveway, and the City suggested that the Applicant apply for the MDEQ permit. The width is only twelve feet. Lot 1 is facing Nine Mile so as to preserve more natural features.

Member Sprague did not think that gated communities should be promoted. The City does not want to become a bunch of isolated subdivisions. He did not think that it was beneficial to stray from the Ordinance. He did not see a hardship in the request. The Fire Marshal has commented on the safety issues. Member Sprague approved of the sidewalk waiver because it was a smart decision.

Member Sprague asked if all of the lots were spoken for. Mr. Chakkarvarti responded that four lots were specifically selected, and the other three would be sold to their three friends. Member Sprague said that it made it easier for him to consider.

Member Sprague was concerned about the safety issues associated with the narrow shared driveway. Mr. Schmitt said that it would be widened to 18 feet. This is a typical width for an emergency lane. It is still not a road. He was actually surprised that the MDEQ issued the permit so quickly. The roads have not been determined to be public or private yet, although the plan does do allude to their being private. The stretch of drive across the wetland would have to be maintained by the homeowner’s association.

Member Sprague asked what the quality of the land was for lots 6 and 7. What are the impacts to the wetland? Would a full drive exacerbate the situation? Mr. Schmitt said the greater the width, the greater the impact. The quality of the site is similar to the entire area. It is densely wooded.

Wetland Consultant Kelly Karll said that there is a forested wetland in the north end. In terms of the crossing, a wider road will yield greater impacts. From twelve to 18 feet, the impact is not that much greater. They have already been permitted ninety yards of cubic fill, and that would probably increase to 120-150 cubic yards. The Applicant is crossing the wetland at the narrow point to minimize the impact. The impacts should be minimal. The culverts will maintain the hydrological connection.

Member Sprague asked about the entirety of the parcel. Mr. Schmitt responded that the lots do cover all of the land. The parcel used to have a westerly swinging leg along Nine Mile. The land owner split off a total of three parcels.

Member Sprague confirmed that the Singh Trail was just north of this property. Mr. Schmitt said it was in the near vicinity.

Member Sprague asked about the Nine Mile vegetation. Landscape Architect Lance Shipman said that the City would support the waiver for the Nine Mile berm, since it is a natural beauty road. Mr. Shipman was concerned that the Landscape Plan indicated a lot of new plantings along Nine Mile, and he wanted to ensure that the natural setting was not overly disturbed. The Applicant has discussed this with the City, though he has not seen this change on the Plan. Mr. Chakkarvarti said that he would add the berm or address the existing vegetation – it was not a problem. Mr. Sprague supported the waiver and thought the natural landscaping was a better alternative.

Member Sprague asked about the woodland count. Mr. Schmitt said that the City disagrees with the count of dead and dying trees indicated by the Applicant’s Landscape Architect. In this case, small trees should be expected in a forested area; not all trees are large. The next submittal should indicate the appropriate mortality rate and show the location of the replacement trees. Member Sprague confirmed that this could be resolved at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

Member Sprague agreed with the comment from the resident. The density cannot dip below R-A standards. The City must continue to preserve and protect the natural features. He thought that the City should not chip away at the density.

Member Avdoulos agreed. He lived in the area and he got involved with the Planning Commission in an effort to keep his eye on the southwest quadrant of the City. He noted that lots 6 and 7 are each just shy of an acre and a half, less dense that the zoned one acre requirement. He did not support the gated community concept. He noted five small subdivisions in the immediate area and said that if each requested a gated community the area would transform into something the City did not want. He noted that Lot 1 would still have a driveway on Nine Mile. Mr. Schmitt said that Lot 1 will show the location of their drive on its own plot plan. There are requirements for spacing from the property line.

Member Avdoulos approved of the shared driveway being widened. He cautioned the Applicant about building basements. He said that they should check their water tables when it is at its peak. Several homes in the area have had water problems.

Member Avdoulos approved of the sidewalk waiver. Mr. Schmitt said that it was probably a condition of the MDEQ Permit that there would have to be a Conservation Easement.

Member Avdoulos said he would leave it to the City and the Woodland Consultant to sort out the mortality rate. Mr. Schmitt said that this will be resolved at Final Site Plan. Member Avdoulos would prefer the natural vegetation to the berm. He noted that a sign has been erected stating that Nine Mile is a natural beauty road.

Member Avdoulos asked about the detention basin. Civil Engineer Ben Croy said that as long as the wetlands are deemed acceptable for use, the detention basin is not necessary.

Member Avdoulos asked about the curve and the entryway. Mr. Schmitt said that the taper is in the ROW in that area, and it encroaches on the neighbor’s property. They will need permission or they will have to modify the taper. Mr. Croy said that the Traffic Consultant may make a recommendation on the final design of this issue. Mr. Croy said that the maximum water service length is being exceeded, and the City will look at this design at Final Site Plan to determine if it’s allowable. Mr. Croy said that the Nine Mile water main was scheduled for 2005.

Member Avdoulos agreed that there is reason to be cautious about the traffic. He said that the City must look at this area’s infrastructure. Last winter the roads were terrible. If more development comes along, the roads must accommodate the traffic and the water must drain. He wanted to ensure that the Applicant was cautious with overgrowth near the roads. He did not want construction vehicles lining up Nine Mile.

Overall, Member Avdoulos wanted to keep the density at .8 units per acre. He appreciated the residents coming forward on this project.

Member Cassis asked how the tree problem would be resolved. Mr. Schmitt responded that the Applicant is only proposing to remove the trees for the roads and utilities. This design must meet Ordinance requirements. The final outcome will be based on the City Forester’s determination. The Planning Commission should include language in an approving motion that addresses the tree count and the mortality rate. There will be additional review on each of the seven lots. Mr. Chakkarvarti said he would abide by the decision of the Woodland Consultant.

Member Cassis said that the homes must remain marketable to others. He did not support the gated community. He was concerned about the shared driveway. Mr. Schmitt said that the Fire Department did not have a problem with an 18-foot width.

Member Cassis said that the project looked good.

Mr. Chakkarvarti said he did not understand the woodland issue. Were they supposed to leave dead and dying trees untouched if they aren’t in the footprint? Mr. Schmitt said that the City will review the trees proposed for removal. The City will look at the lots individually, so they might as well address this issue now. For immediate purposes, the permit will be for the trees affected by the roads and utilities. The Applicant said their intent is to design around the trees. Mr. Schmitt said that is what the City expects.

Landscape Architect Lance Shipman said that the immediate concern is what is developed now – the road. The tree survey covers the whole site. Within that chart, there is a rating on the trees, and that is what is under contention. There is a numbering system in the industry, and Mr. Shipman was not sure that their landscape architect used that system. Some trees just don’t grow big, but that doesn’t mean meet that they should rate "poor." The Applicant said that his landscape architect would work this out with the City.

Member Avdoulos recapitulated the timing of the process of this subdivision. Mr. Avdoulos wanted to ensure that the Applicant understood that once the survey was reviewed, it would give him a better understanding of the quality of the trees so that maximum placements of the building footprints could be made.

Chair Kocan said that some of these lots do not look like they are in the regulated woodlands. Mr. Shipman said that the Woodland map is general, and the Woodland Consultant makes the final determination. Chair Kocan wanted the Applicant to understand that each homeowner would be responsible for tree replacements.

Chair Kocan said that she understood that the final design along the road would be determined by the consultant. This decision would be based on maintaining vegetation and the noise attenuation.

Chair Kocan asked whether it would behoove the area if the transformers were not placed in the rear of the lots, if it meant disturbing more of the regulated woodlands. Mr. Shipman said that there is some latitude, and DTE would be a part of these discussions. They are preferred to be placed in the back, but there are situations where they are moved if this would mean more regulated woodland or wetland disturbance. Sometimes DTE comes forward and makes the recommendation on its own. Ultimately, it is DTE’s decision, and Mr. Shipman agreed with Chair Kocan that the Planning Commission did not have to weigh in on this.

Chair Kocan asked if the water main was installed by the end of the year, what would be the responsibility for these individual homeowners. Civil Engineer Ben Croy responded that he did not know how this particular subdivision would be handled. The Applicant said it was his intention to have the water main service all of the lots.

Chair Kocan said that she did not know the full extent of the dewatering in the area. She asked if dewatering would occur in this area. Mr. Croy said that there is a possibility of it, though it would be minor. The problem that Chair Kocan alluded to was the large subdivision that was dewatering in order to install sewer lines at thirty feet deep. That dewatering has caused a problem, and now that developer is seeking an alternative plan.

Chair Kocan said that she was not aware of any other subdivision where each individual homeowner was responsible for his or her own tree removal program. This is a difficult problem. Mr. Shipman said it was more common than what Chair Kocan might think. This practice is also common where the developer builds the roads and sells off the lots to builders. By doing it in this manner, more trees may be saved. This allows for the building footprint, not the building envelope, to be the area that is cleared. From a residential standpoint, this is the new way, because the lots left in the City to build are the lots covered in trees, wetlands, slopes, etc. The homeowner will submit a plot plan, and if the area is protected, they will have to account for the removed trees. Those trees within the building footprint can be approved for removal by the Woodland Consultant. If there are removals that are outside of the footprint or within an area already deemed protected, then the request would go before the Woodland Review Board.

Chair Kocan said this property is zoned R-A. This property is 13.2 acres, and therefore could essentially have as many as thirteen homes. This plan has been scaled down to seven homes. It may affect traffic, but it is not something not anticipated by the City. She hoped that the Traffic Consultant has approved the entrance as safe. She would not support the gate request, both in light of the Fire Department and the exclusionary feel.

Chair Kocan wondered if the motion should state that the Planning Commission does not support this request. City Attorney David Gillam told her that the motion could grant approval with the removal of the gate. However, it is worded, the Applicant can still go to City Council, but at least it makes the Planning Commission’s position clear.

Chair Kocan said that the Woodland motion must state that the Applicant must abide by the City Forester’s and/or the Woodland Consultant’s acceptance of the tree survey. She wondered if it was appropriate to state that within the deeds and restrictions, it must state that each individual homeowner must adhere to the City’s Ordinance.

Chair Kocan said that the shared driveway was creative. It may not be the best application, but it is unique and she did not see that it would present a problem. She did approve of the expansion of the width to eighteen feet. She confirmed that the MDEQ would have to re-approve that design, and she said that the motion should also reflect this information.

Member Avdoulos confirmed with Mr. Croy that all of the stormwater ran away from Nine Mile into the wetlands. He approved of this, because water onto Nine Mile creates more problems, like ice slicks in the winter. He complimented the Applicant on his work on this plan. He said this area is very sensitive, and this is only seven homes spread over thirteen acres. He hoped the quality of the homes were appropriate for the area.

The Applicant stated for the record that he did not have an issue with the transformer situation.

Member Sprague asked if the drive created a legal exposure for the City. Mr. Gillam said that there would be no exposure. The Applicant is the one seeking the waiver, and there would be no liability issue.

Moved by Member Sprague, seconded by Member Avdoulos:

Mr. Shipman said that it might be appropriate to mention that Nine Mile is designated as a natural beauty road and that the Applicant continues to work with City Staff, which is the guiding factor for that waiver. This better guides the Applicant into understanding what the intent of the waiver is. Member Sprague and Avdoulos agreed with the language.

Moved by Member Sprague, seconded by Member Avdoulos:

Moved by Member Sprague, seconded by Member Avdoulos:

Moved by Member Sprague, seconded by Member Avdoulos:

Chair Kocan called for a short break.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Nudell Architects for Preliminary Site Plan, and Storm Water Management Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 16, at the northeast corner of Grand River Avenue and Beck Road in the OST, Office Service Technology District. The subject property is approximately 1.1 acres and the Applicant is proposing a 4,000 square foot full service bank.

Planner Tim Schmitt located the site on a map for the Planning Commission. Across Beck Road to the west is the West Market Square Shopping Center. To the south is a former gas station. To the southwest is the Westbrook Golf Course and Providence Hospital.

The subject property and those to the north and east are zoned OST. This is a property identified in the 1997 OST Study. Providence is zoned OSC. West Market Square is zoned B-2. The vacant gas station is zoned B-3. The Master Plan recommends office uses for this property, those to the south and south west. West Market Square is master planned for local commercial uses.

There are no wetlands, but there is buffer that the site plan proposes to impact. There will be no fill so no permit is needed. A letter of authorization will be required for the buffer impact. There are no regulated woodlands.

The Applicant will require a variance for a lack of a loading zone, and a lack of building perimeter landscaping. Ordinance changes will be going to the City Council to alleviate future banks’ need for these variances. A parking lot setback waiver is required for the northeast corner – twenty feet are required and eight feet are proposed. The access lane and the bypass lane land come close to the northeast corner. The property line is parallel to Grand River which skews the nature of the setback. The Planning Department did inform the Applicant early on that they would have setback issues, and the Applicant went out and purchased more land. The original corner site was under an acre. A ZBA variance is required for the lack of stacking. Each lane allows for four. The Staff has looked at this design and rotated it on the site, but in the end eighteen additional feet are necessary. Going further to the east is not an option because of the wetlands. The Applicant has indicated he does not need that many spaces, and Mr. Schmitt suggested that this might be an issue for the Implementation Committee to consider.

The Wetland Review indicated that they need additional information for the letter of authorization.

The Landscape Review indicated that a Planning Commission waiver is necessary for the lack of interior parking lot landscaping, or a redesign of the parking lot will be required.

The Traffic Review indicated that an opposite side driveway spacing waiver is required for the Beck Road entrance and the driveway into West Market Square. Both are right-in/right-out driveways. There would not likely be left-turn interlock, which is the issue.

The Engineering Review and the Fire Department Review indicated minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan Review.

This site does appear to have more pavement than a typical bank. It is due to the fact that the bank is not part of another overall development. Previous banks that have come before the Planning Commission have had other points of access. The Applicant has agreed to work with the future developers of the northerly and northeasterly properties. The Applicant has agreed to consider the future of Beck Road in his driveway design.

Alan Olcove from Nudell Architects represented the Applicant. This is a challenging site. Problems include the small size, the angle of the property line, the widening of Beck Road and the setbacks. Bank One worked diligently on this plan. It was difficult to place the detention basin and the setbacks, so they purchased an additional fifty feet from the northerly owner. There is an overall idea on the table that the surrounding parcels will be built as one big development. Bank One wants to be part of the community, and they didn’t want to wait for the overall development to come forward. Bank One will probably sell their property to the big development so that developer can design the site as one. Eventually, the big development would likely build an overall detention pond and Bank One would be able to eliminate the proposed design.

Mr. Olcove said that they have tried to landscape everywhere but he was willing to continue to work with the Landscape Architect.

The Beck Road waiver request is for a road that is currently under construction and has a boulevard design, and is under the jurisdiction of Oakland County. He did not think this waiver request was a big issue.

There was no correspondence to share, so Chair Kocan opened the floor for comment:

Bart Wingblade, current land owner: Thought this would be good for the community and was aware of the pending larger development on the adjacent properties.

Chair Kocan closed the Public Hearing.

Mr. Schmitt clarified that the Planning Commission does not need to act on a Wetland Permit request.

Member Avdoulos said that they met with the land owner during a Master Plan and Zoning Committee meeting. He thought a bank use on this corner would be fine, and noted that banks like to group together.

Member Avdoulos thought the elevation was a good clean design. This corner is getting a new interchange and a new hospital. The Expo Center is just down the road. It is important to have something nice on this corner. The design is not mimicking the property across the street.

Member Avdoulos was concerned about the flow of traffic on the site. There are nine parking spaces that may be affected by over stacking. He was concerned that people who enter from Beck Road have to come to the front to find parking. If there is no parking, then they will have to go up the side. Member Avdoulos was more comfortable eliminating the angled parking and replacing it with a bypass lane. The nine spaces could go on the west side of the building and the building could be moved over. Grand River drivers will see signage for drive-through banking only, or they can funnel left to park. That would allow a bypass lane and stacked cars would not be blocking anyone. Exiting from Beck Road requires the driver to go north. He did not know if there were any turnarounds planned for the area. No one can travel east bound from Grand River without turning around somewhere. Opportunities are being cut off for drivers. He thought the proposed design was creating its own hardship. Mr. Olcove said that there is a full in/out driveway at Michigan Laser. The boulevard will not go the length of Beck Road in that area. He was under the impression that Michigan Lefts would be allowed in this area. They want to have access to the future surrounding development, and they have a current agreement with that land owner to have access to his full driveway. Member Avdoulos did not want the traffic pattern to be difficult to understand.

Member Avdoulos asked if the window count was proposed to be reduced. Mr. Olcove said that they have historical data on drivethroughs, and it indicates that four windows is better than three because four people can be waited on at once. The first three windows would be pneumonic tubes and the fourth would be for the ATM. This works in other locations and they did not anticipate a problem for this bank. There is room for a bypass lane. He said the angled parking would be for the employees. Mr. Olcove said that they tried to reposition the building, but they wanted to keep the area with two-way traffic. The angled parking worked in their design.

Member Sprague asked about the landscaping. Landscape Architect Lance Shipman responded that there are parking and building landscaping issues, which is typical for a bank. They will ask for a variance for the landscaping under the drivethrough area. The parking lot landscaping is lacking. They may be overparked on this site, so they might be able to improve the site in that manner, but he thought that any bank would face these challenges on this site. Because of the drivethrough areas, there is a lot of impervious surface. The parking area requires a lot of landscaping because of all the pavement. They can do better in small numbers but could probably not meet the Ordinance standards. The Applicant is counting areas for parking lot landscaping that they shouldn’t.

Member Sprague asked what the plans are for the surrounding property. Mr. Schmitt said it was zoned OST. Staff would expect an office development. The Master Plan and Zoning Committee reviewed a request to change the zoning to OSC. That Applicant must submit a traffic study. It is just an informal request at this time.

Member Sprague thought this was a prominent corner and perhaps it would be better for this Applicant to wait. He envisioned traffic becoming a mess. He was happy about the stacking being placed to the north.

Member Cassis asked about the Applicant’s relationship with the other owners. Mr. Olcove said that they have spoken, but they don’t have a plan ready yet. They still need to submit their rezoning request. It makes good sense for Bank One to have a relationship with them. He said that this design would adapt to a future surrounding development. They will be able to link to the adjoining Michigan Laser drive. They put their detention pond so it can be coordinated. The north and the east will all be developed together. The Grand River drive might move to accommodate a shared drive further east. That would be better for the bank’s customers. The goal is to for the other developer to have a larger detention area to accommodate the bank. Then this basin would become better landscaped. There is no time frame for the neighbors.

Member Cassis said that neighboring developer has challenges. The Master Plan and Zoning Committee already suggested to him that they work with this parcel in their development.

John Channel of Chase Real Estate stated that the bank is in close negotiation with that property owner. They are bringing the utilities back to that development. The Grand River entrance can connect in two places. Member Cassis said that it would benefit the community if these properties work together. That was his main concern. He was also concerned about the angled parking.

Chair Kocan was concerned that all banks complain about the stacking requirement, but they all comply. She did not think it would be fair to change the standard after all of these banks have complied. She said she would not be able to approve that design. She was concerned about the right-in/right-out. She said the drive is extremely close to the intersection. She said traffic flow was an issue.

Chair Kocan asked if the bank was oversized. She said the corner location requires two entrances. Mr. Schmitt said this was an average sized bank. It does have a large vestibule. The site size is average. The corner location creates their issues. It would be easier to design if this was part of an integrated development. He said that banks all question the City’s stacking requirements, but the other banks don’t have such a skinny parcel.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth said the other banks are also in B-2 zoning districts. This plan is in the OST district and has greater setbacks.

Chair Kocan did not like the idea of getting the final product later. Maybe redesigning the site at a later time can be done but it seemed piece meal.

Chair Kocan asked about the wetlands. Mr. Schmitt said there is a small corner of a wetland that comes onto this property. No impact is proposed, no discharge is proposed, so only a letter of authorization is necessary. MDEQ does not regulate the wetland setback. The Wetland Consultant was just concerned about the accurate reading of the wetland. Chair Kocan thought the architecture was spectacular but she could not support the site plan.

Member Avdoulos said if the potential is for this property to join with the neighboring property, there is also the potential for the owner to say he has decided he doesn’t want to redesign his site to join with the other property. This is a brand new intersection and the City doesn’t want to start breaking up the design of the area right away. He did not know if the Planning Commission could approve the drive to Michigan Laser if that land wasn’t part of this site plan. He thought that Bank One should be given more time to determine what the future of this area really is. He did not want to deny this plan because he thought it was viable, but he felt there was some uneasiness on the Planning Commission.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Sprague:

Chair Kocan thought that postponing would be a good idea. This would give the Applicant time to reconsider the stacking. The Applicant would prefer a postponement over a denial, but they have completed many studies on this site and they know they will still be short on stacking. He asked if he could go to the ZBA first. City Attorney said that a final decision must be made.

Member Cassis supported the plan. He preferred an office and a bank to a restaurant on that corner. If they join with the neighboring lots that would be a good design. It would be more functional.

Member Wrobel leaned against the plan because there are no concrete plans for the neighboring property.

Member Sprague asked if a gas station or restaurant could go on this corner. Mr. Schmitt said that there are ways for a restaurant to be located here, but a gas station would require a rezoning.

Member Sprague asked about other banks meeting the stacking requirement. Mr. Schmitt responded that every bank has made significant changes to their designs throughout their planning processes. He thought the question was whether an appropriate configuration was possible on this site. Mr. Schmitt clarified that the ZBA would have to grant the stacking variance.

Mr. Gillam said that if the Planning Commission denies the plan for the stacking reason, the Applicant can go to the ZBA for a variance. The Planning Commission’s position on this issue will influence the action at tonight’s meeting.

Member Sprague thought consistency was an issue, so this bank should have to comply with the stacking requirements. He was also concerned with the curb cuts, yet they don’t need variances. He would prefer that this corner was part of an overall development. The City will regret approving this plan with the curb cuts so close to the intersection. Ms. McBeth concurred that the curb cuts are not variance issues. They are right-in/right-out and typically, these are not considered a problem that would require a waiver. Mr. Schmitt said this Applicant could to stub to a property line, but he would hesitate recommending that. This type of use needs two access points. Member Sprague said that if push came to shove he would support the site.

Member Lipski asked for clarification on the difference between this site and the other banks. Ms. McBeth said other banks are in B-2 and B-3. This OST district, which this bank is in, requires a fifty foot setback for the building, and twenty feet setbacks for the parking. The other districts require smaller setbacks for both the building and the parking areas. This site has greater buffering requirements. Member Lipski thought that the Applicant did a good job and he supported the plan.

Moved by Member Cassis, seconded by Member Lipski:

Chair Kocan asked if reasons were necessary for the approval of the plan. Mr. Gillam said it wasn’t necessary but could prove beneficial for the ZBA in terms of their review and any decisions they may make. Member Cassis said that the reason for the approval is based on the discussion held this evening. Member Lipski agreed to the language.

Member Avdoulos wondered if the language of the motion should include information on the north drive that they are proposing to go through the Michigan Laser property for connection to the driveway. He did not know how this situation was going to work, and if the Planning Commission was making its approval based on this plan having that access, then he suggested that the language be included. Chair Kocan wondered if the Planning Commission could require off-site improvements. Mr. Gillam did not think this should be considered off-site improvements; rather it is a cross access easement agreement. Member Cassis agreed to add the language, "…the Applicant procuring an easement to the north for cross access. The Applicant agreed to this stipulation.

Member Lipski asked whether an approval could be conditioned on a third party’s giving up a property right. Mr. Gillam said this situation is that the Applicant has indicated that they have reached an agreement with that property owner. They are proposing to the make an off-site improvement in order to improve the flow of traffic in order to gain the Planning Commission’s approval. This is different from the Planning Commission demanding this from the Applicant. Additionally, Mr. Gillam said that the Applicant has asked the Planning Commission to take this into consideration. From a legal standpoint, Mr. Gillam did not have a problem with the stipulation. Mr. Lipski agreed to the language.

Moved by Member Sprague, seconded by member Wrobel:

Chair Kocan asked whether the only item pending then, would be the driveway spacing waiver. Mr. Gillam said that was his interpretation. That is a decision of the Planning Commission. If the variances were granted, the Applicant would have to come back to the Planning Commission for approval of the driveway spacing waiver. Civil Engineer Ben Croy said that if this is a sticking point, he wished to make it clear that the intent of the standard is to prevent left turn interlocking conflicts. That is not the case for this plan. He did not believe the waiver was required. Ms. McBeth concurred, though she offered to confirm that with the Traffic Consultant.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Sprague:

Moved by Member Sprague, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Chair Kocan spoke as a member of the Implementation Committee, stating that as long as information is forthcoming from the Traffic Consultant this would be an acceptable Agenda item. She asked if the Taubman Company was in compliance currently.

Member Avdoulos asked if there are preliminary plans. Director of Planning Barbara McBeth said that Staff has held several meetings with the Taubman Company but plans have not been submitted. Member Avdoulos said that because this is a specific site, a plan would be helpful. Ms. McBeth has asked for a current plan that indicates their compliance, number of spaces, etc. Member Avdoulos figured that the Taubman Company had some type of concept plan that they could share.

chair Kocan explained that the expansion property is currently zoned R-A and they are requesting RC.

Moved by Member Sprague and seconded by Member Cassis:

Chair Kocan asked if the Master Plan and Zoning Committee wished to review this first. The answer was no.

the Planning Commission members turned in their grammatical changes for incorporation into the minutes. Additionally, Chair Kocan clarified that an "on" on page eight should be a "one." Chair Kocan asked that on page 15, paragraph 2, line 5, that the language be changed to include that she wanted the soil boring information not just for the ten homes. On page 17, first paragraph, Chair Kocan wished to add the words "is currently zoned" to the sentence. Chair Kocan wished to have clarification on why some of the correspondence was not returned or not read at the meeting. On page 21, line 4, Chair Kocan said that a "Mr." should be "Member Avdoulos." Chair Kocan asked if Uptown Park was given an opportunity to review the minutes. City Attorney David Gillam said that these are the Planning Commission minutes, not the Applicant’s.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Sprague:

Chair Kocan asked that on page 3, last paragraph, the word "blessed" be corrected to "fast-tracked." On page 7, she wished to add to the paragraph regarding fairness, "… the only way to do that is to uphold the Ordinance. City Council looks at the project and determines whether the project is more important than the Ordinances." She added the word "stated" to the last sentence.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Sprague:

There were no Consent Agenda Removals for Planning Commission Action.

The appointments were not made at the City Council meeting held earlier in the week, so this item was postponed. The appointments would be made at their next meeting. Members Sprague, Avdoulos and Cassis were up for re-appointments. She wondered if the election of officers should occur at the first meeting in August. Member Avdoulos would prefer to wait. New members should have an opportunity to meet everyone and be prepared. This is a courtesy.

These appointments would also take place at the August meeting. Director of Planning Barbara McBeth asked that each of the Planning Commission Members fill out the Committee Matrix and return it to the Planning Department.

There is an Implementation Meeting scheduled for Monday.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Sprague:

The meeting adjourned at 11:49 p.m.

MON 07/18/05 IMPLEMENTATION MEETING 6:00 PM

MON 07/25/05 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 07/27/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

TUE 08/02/05 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

MON 08/08/05 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 08/10/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 08/15/05 IMPLEMENTATION MEETING 6:00 PM

MON 08/22/05 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 08/24/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 09/05/05 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

MON 09/12/05 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 09/13/05 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

WED 09/14/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

Transcribed by Jane L. Schimpf, August 16, 2005 Signature on File

Date Approved: August 24, 2005 Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date